[@mention:564684143600201011] Glad it helped!
I'm just a bit puzzled about the possibilities of Roles transferring ownership of things with right policies/accountabilities etc. do you maybe know where I can read more on that?
If you're transferring "ownership" in terms of governance then you just need to propose moving domains around. But I think you know that.
So, if you mean processes for transferring "ownership" as in resources/money/assets, then yes, that isn't specified in the constitution.
There are lots of threads that have addressed this, but they haven't been consolidated into a coherent answer. Makes me really want to publish one! Until then, you can read the discussion on Github about the confusion: https://github.com/holacracyon...nstitution/issues/75
In short, and prepare yourself to be dissatisfied with my explanation, the Lead Link of the broadest circle (whether that is the GCC or Anchor Circle, or whatever you call it) is the only role that has any authority over spending money/disposing resources (all other authorities to spend cascade from that role--meaning sub-circle Lead Links can spend if given permission by the broadest Lead Link) . And that authority is implied, because by definition that Lead Link is holding everything in the organization. And because the delegation of a domain does NOT include the authority to dispose of resources, then the only way anyone can spend money other than the "broadest" Lead Link, is to be given explicit permission to do so. This could be oral permission from that role even, or in H1's case, we have a policy that authorizes the GCC Lead Link to spend money, because our Anchor Circle is our broadest circle.
Again, check out the Github thread for a better explanation.