Hello Holacracy Community Members,
I always thought that the Rep Link of a Sub-Circle was doing the exact same job as the Lead Link of that Sub-Circle when they were in the Super-Circle: both embodying the role.
In fact, my interpretation of the constitution is that it is more subtle:
- Purpose: Within the Super-Circle, the Rep Link holds the Purpose of the SubCircle;
- Accountability: Providing visibility to the Super-Circle into the health of the Sub-Circle, including reporting on any metrics or checklist items assigned to the whole Sub-Circle
So the Rep Link only holds the PURPOSE of the Sub-Circle and provides visibility on metrics or checklist items during tactical meetings.
Lead Link: from the Super-Circle perspective, he IS the entire role, as if there were no Circle.
So, my question/reflection is: in a governance meeting of the Super-Circle, if someone propose to add a domain on the Sub-Circle (let's imagine it is a valide proposal), I would say that only the Lead Link of that Sub-Circle could object unless this proposal hurts the purpose of the Sub-Circle but I wouldn't imagine a domain hurting the purpose of a circle... What do you think?
Any thought, insight, etc. is more than welcome