On the topic of basic. I have been browsing thought the constitution and wanted to ask a bit more about the following:
> 2.1.2 Roles May Impact Circle Domains
Further, you may not transfer or dispose of the Domain itself or any significant assets within the Domain, nor may you significantly limit any rights of the Circle to the Domain. However, these restrictions do not apply if a Role or process holding the needed authority grants you permission to do so.
Could anyone please give me an example of a process grating a Role permission to dispose/transfer a whole or a part of a Domain? Any other comments on this are most welcome.
> 2.2.3 Amending the Lead Link Role
A Circle may not add Accountabilities or other functions to its own Lead Link Role, or modify the Role’s Purpose, or remove the Role entirely.
I wondered why is that the Circle cannot add an accountability to the Lead Link role?
There are some reasons I could think of something and it goes something like that:
The general direction should be „less Lead Link the better” as he already serves as a „bucket” of undifferentiated accountabilities. In Holacracy we want to have explicit accountabilities on differentiated roles which better align the formal and requisite structures instead of having a hodge-podge of a Role. Since we already know the accountability the want to add to LL we can look if it fits any other existing Role and if not, we can create a matching Role and it’s purpose. The LL will have to assign a person to energise the Role anyway. That is also the reason why assigning the LL accountabilities to other Roles is „ok” since its LL accountability and Domain to guard the Person/Role fit.
Please do let me know if you find this reasonable and in line with Holacracy logic.
Thanks in advance and have a great day!