@eric that is correct. The attention points policy can be accessed here: https://glassfrog.holacracy.or...icies/3628?locale=en
In a nutshell, lead links of each circle allocate a number of 'attention points' to each role. A full-time role equivalent = 100 attention points. For example, if I hold two roles that take 50% of my time each, then I would have 50 attention points assigned to each role. Lead links are responsible for allocating attention points, and circle members must work with lead links in the event they want more/less points to a role. The GCC Lead Link sets the attention point budgets for sub circles, in which the sub circle lead links assign them in their respective circles. The goal of attention points is to allow lead links to set priority and allocation of peoples time. For example, if we are doing a recruiting push, maybe all of my attention points will be shifted towards my recruiting role, and other roles will get less focus. It may sound a bit 'dictating' but I've found that it really isn't. It makes it more clear how you should be spending your time, and expectations on that role.
So why did attention points help us in this scenario ? In assigning attention points, it becomes more clear what roles are insignificant/redundant/stale when you are reviewing how much time a person should spend in them. It forced us to re-think and re-tool our roles to make them more relevant. Since adopting, we have made a lot of governance changes. They weren't forceful, and I found that most people agreed with the clean up proposals.
It put everyone in a mindset that as a team we should be regularly reviewing our roles, and roles we interact with, and to propose changes if it will be beneficial.