I am confused right now about how the Lead Link and Rep Link are defined in the Constitution!
Looking at "2.3.1 BASE MEMBERSHIP" - it seems the Rep Link is only a (core) role within the (super-)circle to which it is elected, and not in the (sub-)circle in which it is elected. Is that true?
2.3.1 BASE MEMBERSHIP
Unless a special appointment or exclusion is made under the terms of this section, the Core Circle Members of a Circle are:
(a) each Partner filling a Defined Role in the Circle;
(b) the Lead Link of the Circle, as defined in Section 2.2;
(c) each Rep Link elected to the Circle, as defined in Section 2.6.4; (d) and each Cross Link into the Circle, as defined in Section 2.7
In the Holacracy book (and H1 training), we're told that the Lead Link is in the super-circle - and indeed GlassFrog represents it this way. But I cannot find anything in the constitution that says this.
I guess it's some kind of interaction between "2.1 CIRCLE BASICS"...
A “Circle” is a Role that may further break itself down by defining its own contained Roles to achieve its Purpose, control its Domains, and enact its Accountabilities.
and "2.2.1 HOLDS UNDIFFERENTIATED FUNCTIONS"...
A Circle’s Lead Link inherits the Purpose and any Accountabilities on the Circle itself, and controls any Domains defined on the Circle, just as if the Circle were only a Role and the Lead Link filled that Role.
But then I have also had several much more experienced Holacracy practitioners tell me today that the "Lead Link role does not exist in the super-circle; the Lead Link exists within the (sub-)circle. In the super-circle, there is only the role, which is filled by the role-holder of the Lead Link role within the sub-circle". IE that these are different roles - and that the Lead Link therefore cannot be said to process tensions in the super-circle.
I find this really confusing - is there something that I'm missing?