How do sub-circles "talk" to each other> constitutionally required meetings of Tactical + GovernanceBy the way, as far as i understand this — Tactical is not _required_, the Constitution just sets the example you can implement, but explicitly lets you to change it, or remove at all (that's changing too).
Policy About VacationA policy cannot gover PEOPLE, but it can govern ROLES, right?So, vacation policy probably under Associate Relationships Domain looks like a valid thing to do.
It doesn't. LL can modify Anchor Circle's Accountabilities, not Roles' or Sub-Circles'.> Now the Lid link of the Anchor Circle should withdraw the proposal?No. LL of "IT Development" and Anchor Circle LL should search for a proposal, that would address initial tension and the objection raised....
No.Anchor Circle can have Accountabilities as well as any other Role/Circle — that would be Organization's Accountabilities.
I was at a practitioneer training about a month ago, and specifically asked Brian about this and confusion this introduces.He seemed to be okay with clarifying it in 5.0 constitution.
Doubt about a potential case of NVGOIt's not NVGO, but probably objection is in order.LL might have a problem filling a role that requires this universal skillset.If there's a Marketing role, that has a Purpose about campaigns — this might be a clarity problem.
4.2.2 AttendanceGuests are not "normally invited" — they're invited to process one particular tension.I'd say it's more about core members without roles (assigned by LL) or Cross-Links, for example, although they're supposed to Core Members. Another example might be acting Facilitator that is not normally a Core...