Hey [@mention:550326589936180144] This one is sometimes useful, for example when a circle would like an external coach to attend the meeting to give some shadow coaching or whatever.

Hi Arif. This article also make it possible for the circle to elect one person as facilitator even if it had no other roles in the circle before the election. For example, somebody in the organization who has been trained. Because you need to be a Core circle member to be eligible to an such an election (article 2.5.1).

Best regards 

Thank you [@mention:476716727616148334] & [@mention:449833773917801859] for explaining the intent behind the article.  

Although I can't help but see a loophole here which allows the Lead Link to bring in whatever role he/she wants just because the lead link feels like it, since it's expressly mentioned, "beyond those required by this Constitution".

Anyway, not a big deal.  At least I am now clear where this article is coming from.

Hi Arif,

I'm not certain I got your point about the loophole, but if I understood weel, here is a point of view that may help : 

The fact that the Lead Link can bring in anybody in a role, is a possibility independent from the special appointement as core circle member. Indeed, the LL can assign people to a role that hadn't precedently any role in the circle (cf : 2.4 Role assignement).

And if any member of the circle feels a concrete tension about that possibility led to the LL, its always possible to propose to remove this authority from the LL in a governance meeting (2.2.3 Amending the Lead Link role).

Best regards

Thank you Vincent.  Your response helps even further.

The loophole I see, stems from the phrase, "beyond those required by this Constitution".  

Therefore technically the LeadLink can introduce ANY role that:
- Doesn't serve the purpose of the circle,
- Doesn't resolve a tension 
- And just addresses his personal tension
because the constitution clearly allows him to go "beyond the requirements of the constitution".

However as you mentioned, (2.2.3 Amending the Lead Link role) is a good check against this that any member can propose to remove this authority from the LL in a governance meeting. 

Arif - I don't understand (or share) that interpretation.  The constitution doesn't say a Lead Link can go beyond the requirements of the constitution, or anything like that.  It says he can appoint circle members beyond the ones required by the constitution; so there are some members required by the constitution, and then a lead link can add additional ones.  The lead link still must be serving the lead link role to do so; it does not say the person filling the lead link role can do so, it says the lead link can do so, and that's defined as "when acting in the capacity of the role".

Thanks for the clarification @Brian.

It seems to me that the only time this Clause would be useful is when the Lead Link would like someone to fill a Role who is not currently a Partner.  That's when Lead Link would need to go beyond the constitution.  

As long as there is a Partner who can fill the role, the Lead Link can very much use the constitution to request him to fill the role.

Have I got that right?

Remember, it's not "going beyond the constitution" - that's not allowed.  It's assigning people as Circle Members who are not required to be Circle Members, which is within the constitutional authority of Lead Link.

And yes, a Lead Link could use that to invite a non-partner role-filler to be a Circle Member (a non-partner would normally not be one, even if the lead link assigned them to fill a role in the circle).  A Lead Link could also use this rule to invite someone to participate in governance and tactical for awhile before assigning them to a role, so they have more context to find roles, or perhaps so they have the context to find opportunities for Individual Action.  There are probably other use-cases as well.

Got it, Brian.  Thanks again!