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

Hi, [@mention:549059653898032589]:

I have a slightly different take on it.  

Any circle members can further grant or constrain the Role's Authority within the domain

Let's say in circle "X", there is a role "A" that has been delegated the "D" Domain.  Role "A" has published a policy "P" on that domain.

Now, I've always interpreted the above line of the constitution to mean that members of circle "X" can modify the scope of delegation of domain "D" to role "A", but not  directly modify the policy "P" that role "A" has made for domain "D".

Circle Member of Circle "X" can say, create a policy "Q" (in circle X) that limits the usage of Domain "D" by role "A" to only certain situations, or that disallows access to certain roles no matter what.  In this case, the Circle Members do not modify Policy "P" directly.  This is to be done by role "A" after policy "Q" has been consented. If Policy "P" violates the new policy "Q", then role "A" needs to update policy "P" to be inline with policy "Q".  

Now, it could be said that by making policy "Q", circle members are effectively forcing a modification on policy "P".  This may be true, but at least it is clear that circle members can not directly modify policies on domains that have been delegated to roles, thus respecting the sovereignty of each role/circle.

This is somewhat similar to accountabilities put on a circle.  The super circle can modify accountabilities on the sub-circle, but not how the sub-circle distribute the accountabilities within the sub-circle.  When the super circle changes the accountabilities on a sub-circle, it is up to the sub-circle to propagate the change to the roles within it. The super circle can not directly put accountabilities on roles within the sub-circle.

Hope I'm not confusing you more with all my alphabets Couldn't find another way to describe it.

This is my interpretation. Curious if most others interpret it this way as well.