Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

[@mention:586501884352325570] Yes, good question. Understanding priorities really require connecting two sections of the constitution. First, as you point out, is the one about the Lead Link having an accountability for defining them. 

The second part you need is 4.1.3(c), which is about the duties every partner has. It says, "(c) Circle Needs Over Individual Goals: You must integrate and align with any official prioritizations or Strategies of the Circle, such as those specified by the Circle’s Lead Link, when assessing how to deploy your time, attention, and other resources to your work within the Circle.

Combining these two sections means that the Lead Link doesn't technically have a domain on setting priorities, but the Lead Link's prioritization is the ONLY ONE a partner must align with. So, technically anyone could give anyone else a prioritization, but technically you have absolutely no obligation to listen to it. 

In practice, however, it's effectively like a domain which is why it seems that way.  Metrics work the same way. The Lead Link doesn't have a domain on them, but 4.1.1(b) and 4.2.1(b) and 4.2.3(c) all state that you only have to report on the ones assigned by the Lead Link. 

So, it's definitely confusing, but that's how I understand it. In summary, while it's not technically a domain, it effectively acts like one.