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

Hi Dennis,

as Bernard started above. my reaction depends on a limited understanding of your case. with that disclaimer, here are my 2 cents.

A domain is one way to go. Big benefit is that you put a "fence" around something very clearly. Its explicit that "trespassing" is not allowed with out explicit ok from that role/circle.

But a domain is a heavy thing. I recommend to start with looking at the scope of work defined by the accountabilities of the role in the super-circle and the accountabilities of the sub-circle that hold the role that does something similar. What could you propose in Governance that would reduce the overlap between these two? Where does the work that is now "taken care of twice" naturally belong?

Second thing I would look at is if the role created by the subcircle fits cleary within the accountabilities of the circle. As by article 2.1 a Circle may enact its accountabilities and typically does so by breaking those down by defining its own contained roles. So is there a good reason that role belongs to the sub-circle?

Using 3.4.4 as Secretary if you sence this sub-circle went beyond the scope of the accountabilities given to them is again a heavy measure. Maybe its just another tension requiring some more clarity on how the sub-circle is defined. And the circle itself will act on it once its accountabilities become more clear.