Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Nick Osborne posted:

And to add to this, I'd like to apply this thinking to the issue of a policy for the 'Auto-accept time limit' for asynchronous Governance proposals. 

If a GCC creates a policy for the auto-accept time limit to be say 5 days, then does this time limit then automatically apply to all sub-circles of the GCC or not? 

According to the above, if a domain of 'Auto-accept time-limit' was created and delegated from the Anchor Circle and a policy for 5 days created, then this would apply to all circles, regardless of which circle the domain and its policy sits in. 

But if this domain isn't delegated in this way, and the policy applies only to the default 'All functions & activities within the Circle' domain, then the policy obviously doesn't apply upwards to super-circles, but there is a question of whether it applies downwards to all sub-circles of the circle its created in? 

This relates to Andrea's question above about whether the default 'All functions and activities within the Circle' is a 'fully-fledged domain' or not, and I'm not sure whether this query I have here is because of a gap in my understanding or a gap in the constitution not providing clarity on this issue? 

So if anyone else has any clarity on this issue then I'd appreciate it as this is a live issue for a client right now, thanks!

Hi [@mention:450960215289659578], if the most common interpretation for Policies' scope is that it applies to all sub-circles, it's indeed not very "easy" to read it in the constitution. I actually had the exact same question about the auto-accept time-limit. One year later, did you finally end up with a nice smooth argumentation I could use :-)