Chris Cowan posted:
As you probably already know Section 5.2.2 of the constitution gives some guidance on this.
Here is one way to think about it. The Lead Link role is a bundled collection of authorities, as such, they can be broken apart and distributed however makes sense for your situation.
I'll highlight the part of 5.2.2 that says, "all decisions that normally require Lead Link authority become valid outputs of the Circle’s Governance Process," because the only decisions which require Lead Link authority are:
- Allocating resources (discussion here)
- Role-assignments (Lead Link domain)
- Defining metrics (4.1.1d)
- Setting priorities and strategies (2.2.2)
Everything else can be done by anyone. However, the main thing to watch out for is a lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for what. With such a small team it might not be an issue.
There are other things to watch for as well, but that's a quick answer!
Thanks for the insights, Chris!
I get the point when you say we might miss clarity sometimes, as we plan to grow the team a bit fast.
But the real challenges are probably in defining the strategy and priorities! Should I get a role just for that in each circle?
Does it make any sense to have a circle/role that just looks for the other circles and help them to set their priorities?
And what is the difference between allocating resources and role-assignment? The 2nd one it's kinda obvious, but not the 1st one!
And can I ask you to tell the other things we might watch for as well?