I've got a couple of questions re. strategies.
1. When there are no strategies defined in a subcircle, but there strategies defined in a broader circle, glassfrog shows (when viewing the subcircle) the strategies of the first broader circle that has strategies. It show under 'Current strategies': '(Inherited from <name of the first broader circle where strategies are found> '
Why does glassfrog do that? I have tried to find a constitutional rule, but can't find it.
2. When (the Lead Link of) a subcircle defines strategies for the circle, are they _replacing_ or _adding_ to the inherited strategies?
My understanding was you are always _adding_ (because of alignment), not replacing: There is (or are) the strategies as defined by one or multiple broader circles that the Lead Link (and all roles within the circle) should align with, _and_ the Lead Link can _add_ strategies to the circle.
Glassfrog gives me the impression that the strategies defined by a Lead Link for its circle are _replacing_ the strategies of the broader circle, because it doesn't display the inherited strategies when it has one defined for its own.
3. It is the autonomy of the Lead Link to set strategies for its circle (the broader circle cannot change the strategies of a subcircle) _and_ the must align with the broader circle (at least my interpretation of article 4.1.3 Duty of Prioritization, point c) Circle needs over individual needs.
Thus, to my understanding, there is a hierarchy of strategy, just like there is a hierarchy of purpose.
If that's correct, wouldn't it be more logical if glassfrog always shows (in the view of any subcircle) all the 'inherited' strategies of broader circles first and the additions added by the LL of that circle (if any)?
Your reaction is appreciated!
PS: I'd love to see a similiar 'map' of the 'hierachy of *purpose* when looking at any subcircle