Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

Does this mean that a Required Role filler has a de facto "veto" right to refuse a new or modified accountability, even if the Role description is the most obviously suitable Purpose for the added accountability ?

Let me give more background. We have a Production circle, in which there is a Stock Manager role (which buys stuff from suppliers) and a Machine Builder role, which uses stuff from the Stock to build products. That worked so far, but then we began using a software product, which requires a serial key to be provisioned from the software supplier. The Machine Builder role needed a serial key and wasn't sure who to ask it from, and while an informal process was currently in place, a discussion occured on who was supposed to provide that serial key (and hence provisioning it). Our intuition would be to solve the tension "There is no existing process to provision a serial key" by extending the "Stock Manager" role accountability "Provision hardware components from suppliers" to "Provision hardware and software from suppliers". However, the "Stock Manager" objected that it was software, not hardware, and that he had no time to process that new item on top of all other accountabilities he also had.

How would you takle that use case ?