Hi Everyone - Thanks for replying.
Eric - Appreciate your comments very much. I am struggling with your reply on a number of levels:
- Regarding your belief in intent - My take on holacracy is a system based on explicitness, and to use the argument of intent is quite a slippery slope, that could be applied to way too many things. Regarding the grammar in section 4.1.3.C, it seems very explicit, rather than implying. That is, when writing "this 1, this 2, and other items", all this's are classified by the "other items" i.e. "BMWs, Fords, poodles and other cars" wouldn't make sense.
- In the section 1.2.5, I do see the title "Attention & Resources", I see your point that both in a title would indicate they are different, but it's not titled "Time & Resources" and doesn't explicitly define the relationship between time & resources. In that regard, I could interpret that Attention is a "use" of time, and time meaning "available human resource".
But that is just wrangling with the legalese of the constitution. I guess for me, most importantly, is that I'm struggling with the logic that:
- If Money is a resource, and
- If a lead link allocates money for a role to purchase external services, the external services are a resource (even rented services such as a building lease).
- But the moment a Lead Link allocates money to pay for an "internal human resource" whether as a partner/employee, their available time is no longer a resource.