Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Chris Cowan posted:

Further, in an Anchor Circle with no Lead Link, the normal authority of Roles to autocratically impact Circle Domains (per Section 2.1.2) is revoked. Instead, the Circle’s Roles may only impact its Domains if a Policy explicitly allows the impact, or, alternatively, by proposing the action using the Circle’s Governance Process, exactly as described above for exercising Lead Link authority."

 

Hi [@mention:455886150941203371], I'm curious about this last part of your answer, and this aspect of the Constitution. Could you (or any other wonderful member of this community !) tell me the "why" of this limit about domains for Anchor circles without LL ? Was there a tension who brought to this ? Another aspect of my interrogation is : in an Anchor circle with LL, why don't we have the same limitation, what doesn't make it necessary too (some part of LL authorities ?) ?

I'm aware that the LL has an accountability about resources allocation : "Allocating the Circle’s resources across its various Projects and/or Roles" ; but that's an accountability, not a domain so that there is no exclusive control granted to the LL about resources.

And by the way, a connected questions I have : if in holacracy what's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, what does prevent any member in any role to spend money and make investments ? If there is no policy about it ? I feel sometimes inconfortable about that question when people ask me, knowing that the LL has no domain about it (and I can imagine why it has not). I wonder how you deal with it, guys.

Thanks a lot !