"However, this election is not required when a Circle lacks any Core Circle Members other than those serving as Lead Link and Cross Links into the Circle. 2.6.4 Rep Link to Super-Circle"
Does this mean that even if there are Defined Roles in the Sub-Circle that are filled by the same persons that those filling either Lead Link or Cross Links Roles, there would not be a Rep Link?
If answer is yes, then my question is Why?
My take on it is that in such a case, there would be a need for a Rep Link as there are Defined Roles.

As a new Holacracy practitioner, I'd like to be able to expect the elected Facilitator to provide some Holacracy coaching during meetings, so that I can rely on them not just to hold to due process, but also to help me learn that process and how to use it effectively.

The accountability on Rep Links to report on metrics doesn't make sense; I added it in a prior version based on a purely theoretical idea (whoops), and it's been very weird in practice - it gives the rep link an operational responsibility in the broader circle, which the broader circle lead link needs to count on, and this has been very weird in practice and seems incongruent with the rest of the role. And note the Lead Link's responsibility to report on metrics is already covered by §4.1.1(d), so this accountability seems purely unnecessary.

At section 3.2.2 Criteria for Valid Proposals, Facilitator may discard a non valid Proposal before it is fully processed.
"Some Proposals are disallowed within a Circle’s Governance Process, and the Facilitator may discard these before they are fully processed."

At section 3.2.3 Testing Proposals, Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal.
"The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking questions of the Proposer."

There is a bug there, as there is no explicit rules in the IDM process described further re when the Facilitator may test the Proposal. This happens a lot with new clients and so with respect to the constitution, the Facilitator is not able to discard an invalid Proposal even when questions are asked during the Clarifying Questions. In such case, Facilitator may not discard as it is in the present version and has to wait until Objection round in order to object and then wait until integration to discard the unvalid Proposal.

For me this needs to be fixed before 5.0 as it is not an enhancement but clearly a bug.

As a role-filler in a multi-filled role, I'd like constitutional guidance on how multi-filled roles share authority/autonomy within the role when a Focus is not provided, so that we don't feel the pull to default to consensus on many issues.

To provide a more aligned flow of ideas and development of Concept. Suggest the following Order of Sections:

2.1 Circle Basics
2.3 Core Circle Members
2.4 Role Assignment (Defined Roles) see issue raised pertaining to this.
2.2 Circle Lead Link
2.5 Elected Roles
2.7 Cross Linking
2.6 Sub-Circles

Currently, the constitution requires each circle schedule "regular" governance meetings; the frequency is left to the Secretary, and a Secretary could decide that monthly, quarterly, or even annually is appropriate.

A question has surfaced several times now about whether this requirement gets in the way and should be removed. For example, in circles with more experienced practitioners, I sometimes feel that it'd be more efficient to just deal with tensions via asynchronous proposals until a special governance meeting is actually requested. As another example, one company had a circle that wasn't actually doing much operationally itself, but just acting as a holding grounds for its various sub-circles, so they didn't want governance meetings except when someone actually requested one.

The challenge is, for inexperienced practitioners, regular meetings help tremendously - people are unlikely to call for a governance meeting before they get in the groove of tension processing via governance, yet when there's a regular meeting, they often try it out and learning happens (for both them as Holacracy practitioners and the circle via the resulting governance changes). Is there a danger that these important governance meetings for novice practitioners just won't happen if the "regular" requirement were dropped, and thus novice Secretaries felt more comfortable just not scheduling any? Or is it that just a training/coaching burden, to add to the already-long list of other points a novice Secretary (or any role) needs to understand?

Thoughts?

I see that version 4.1 has been released now, and that the master branch here shall be the development version going towards 5.0.

To help with making clear contributions, could you please tag the current snapshot (the one that is 4.1) as a "release" here on Github? (https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/releases) Thank you!

I recognise that what I am raising, is in relation to one of the fundamental shifts of the Constitution. I don't know the driver or motivation for this change all I can mention is the Tension this has created for me.

One of the fundamental concepts of Holacracy I always come back to is the degree of separation between Organisation and it's members, to quote HolacracyOne "Of the Company, through the People, for the Purpose". The Constitution pertains to the Organisation as per the first line under the Preamble "This Constitution defined rules and processes for the governance and operation of an Organisation". The Constitution does not pertain direct to the members of the Organisation, but is a condition of membership.

What I mean with this is that in order for the principles of Holacracy to work, an Organisation cannot control the members (this is ************), but has an obligation to control its functions, roles, processes (this is stipulation). The first is directed at a PERSON (removes freedom) the second is directed at a system CONSTRUCT (enhances freedom).

I mention this as the change in Grammatical Person from 3rd person to 2nd person shifts the direction of the Constitution from the Organisation (system constructs) to the Members (persons). Where the 3rd person clarified the distinction between Organisation and Member (the Organisation is not the Members and the Members are not the Organisation), which our Human Nature has a hard time keeping separate, the 2nd person now muddies and risks the age old problem of "roles defining a persons identity" and so power struggles.

By changing the Grammatical Person of the constitution you change the entity vested with power. Power in Holacracy is vested in the roles (system constructs) to ensure proper apportioning and eliminate power struggles. By changing the constitution to 2nd person you vest the power squarely back in People.

This is highlighted in the Grammatical Person, of 2nd person, introducing terms such as "You Must, You Shall, You Need, You cannot, You will, You have, You may, You may not" all of which are directed to PERSON and control a person. I don't need to mention the effect or the reactions this induces within an organisation.

PREAMBLE: The "Ratifies" adopt these rules (instead of: are adopting these rules)

1.2 Responsibilities of Role Filling: As a Partner of the Organization, you have the following responsibilities for each Role you are assigned to, (add: as per the following sections.)

1.2.3 Processing Projects: including the defining of Next-Actions (instead of: Including by defining Next-Actions)

1.3 Authority to Act: any Next-Actions you reasonably believe to be necessary or desirable (instead of: any Next-Actions you reasonably believe are necessary or desirable)

2.1.1 Defining Roles & Policies: replace all "create" with "define".

I have noted the following:
Strategy is mentioned several times in the Constitution.
It is covered in the document 'From Aim to Action with Holacracy' mentioning Strategy Meetings.
There exists a Policy for Strategy Meeting within HolacracyOne's own structure.
GlassFrog identifies it as a separate Attribute along with a Circle's Purpose, Domains, and Accountabilities.

This indicates to me it is deserving of explanation and mention within the constitution.

Strategy - (a.k.a. Heuristics) Overall direction for prioritising the work of the circle and each of its roles, in service of the Purpose (i.e. which projects to prioritise over others). All roles within the circle are expected to align with the Strategy.

Section 3.5.3 describes what happens between when a process breakdown is declared and when "the Facilitator of the Super-Circle concludes that due process has been restored". However, in the unfortunate event that a process breakdown is declared in the Anchor Circle, there will not be a Facilitator of the Super-Circle that can conclude that due process has been restored. This leaves the end point of the authorities granted in Section 3.5.3 open for interpretation.

I think it would be good to update the constitution to clarify who will conclude that due-process has been restored in the Anchor Circle because delaying the interperatation until the circle is in the middle of a process breakdown has the potential to cause harm in a way that is not "safe-to-try".

Section 3.4 allows the secretary of the Anchor Circle to publish an interpretation on any part of the constitution with no mechanism for appeal. This effectively gives the secretary of the Anchor Circle absolute power which can be used to (among other things) declare that Section 5.5 gives them the authority to amend the constitution.

The grant of authority in §1.3 should be for any actions to express purpose/accountabilities, _as long as_ they are not counter to the organization's purpose/interests, to be clear that there's a duty to consider that and not just blindly optimize your role at the risk of sub-optimizing the overall organization.

I'm considering tweaking an objection validity criteria, and I'm trying to assess: (a) should I save this to consider for v5.0 instead of v4.1, and (b) does this change add greater clarity and distinction-making capacity, without breaking anything in the process?

The candidate change is from this objection validity criteria:
(c) The Tension is triggered by presently known data or events, without regard to predicted data or events. However, relying on predicted data or events is allowed when no opportunity is likely to exist in the future to adequately sense and respond to the predicted situation before significant impact could result.

To this language instead:
(c) The Tension is triggered immediately just by facts known at present or recent history, without regard to a prediction of what might happen in the future. However, relying on predictions is allowed when there won't be a reasonable opportunity to sense and respond in the future before significant impact results.

Thoughts or feedback anyone?

Would recommend to add an "S" to Domain in the first sentence of 2.6.1

2.6.1 Modifying Sub-Circles

A Circle may modify the Purpose, Domain, or Accountabilities on a Sub-Circle.

A Circle may also move its own Defined Roles or Policies into a Sub-Circle, or move any from within the Sub-Circle into itself.

Any of these modifications may only be done via the Governance Process of the Circle.

Beyond these allowed changes, a Circle may not modify any Defined Roles or Policies held within a Sub-Circle.

Another embedded Definition under 2.1 Circle Basics, (the Roles a Circle defines are its “Defined Roles”). Anyone filling a Defined Role within a Circle is a “Circle Member” of that Circle.

Propose to make it Section 2.4 Defined Roles: The Roles a Circle defines are its “Defined Roles”. Anyone filling a Defined Role within a Circle is a “Circle Member” of that Circle.

As it pertains and provides a foundation for that Section.

As a role-filler of a role where governance requires me to integrate objections from other roles for certain operational decisions, I'd like to be able to rely on the Facilitator and Secretary to hold a more formal IDM process with those other roles if needed (including testing objections), so that I can get the rigor of IDM outside of governance meetings for those operational decisions that do require integration across roles.

As the Lead Link of one of many sub-circles that do a very similar type of work with similar roles, I'd like to be able to start my circle with a set of default/templated roles defined and maintained elsewhere in the organization, and then modify them only as-needed to adapt to our local context, so that I can benefit from prior organizational wisdom/learning without reinventing the wheel in my sub-circle.

When I read the constitution I notice references to what appear to be default / implicit domains:

• From 2.1.1 "Further, each Circle may control its own functions and activities, as if a Domain of the Circle" (eg All functions & activities within the Circle)
• From 5.2 "This “Anchor Circle” becomes the broadest Circle in the Organization, and automatically controls all Domains that the Organization itself controls" (eg All Company property & ordinary business affairs)

Am I correct that these are in fact implicit domains? If so I would like to propose addition of an appendix (similar to Appendix-A for core roles) to list implicit domains and maybe a few notes about example uses in the FAQ.

PS what happened to "all partner relationship" from v4.0 - clause 5.2.5?

As a partner in a Holacracy-powered company, I'd like to be able to express my intention to take some action (via writing in an appropriate and customary forum), and after a reasonable delay have that count as getting no-objections from any role with a relevant domain that would be impacted by the intended action I've shared, so that I don't have to figure out exactly what domains my action would impact, and to further encourage a culture of self/role-leadership and empowered entrepreneurial action-taking over asking permission.

Note: H1 has had a policy to this effect for a little while now; it reads:

Normally, you need permission to impact the Domains of other roles via your actions, per Constitution §1.3. However, for the purpose of §1.3, you are automatically considered to have explicit permission to impact all relevant domains via an action, if you share your intent to take that action in advance and no one with a relevant domain asks you not to within a reasonable timeframe. However, to count as getting permission under this rule from a given individual, your intent to act must be shared via a standard written communication method customarily used for sending messages to that individual.

Hi,

I was wondering if it's possible to have the pdf versions of the documents in the releases ?
I think it will be easier if when people download the latest release of the constitution, the pdf versions are available.

Thanks,

Dien.

Could you also upload the current version 4.0 of the constitution (maybe as a separate branch)? It would help me working on the development version if I could easily see the changes that it already has, compared to 4.0.

https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution#how-is-this-document-intended-to-be-used
This Constitution is intended to be referenced by whatever declaration or agreement captures the decision to organize using the Holacracy system. That may be a formal set of legal bylaws or similar operating agreement, or a simple board resolution or CEO policy declaration similar to the sample one attached at the end of this document. See Article V for key adoption-related matters, and note also that this explanatory page and the sample declaration at the end are included for informative purposes but do not constitute part of the core Constitution document.

I assume that this text was copied from another web page and there is no longer a sample declaration?

Would be nice to have hyperlinks defined for references to core roles in Holacracy-Constitution.md to the role definitions in Appendix-A.md

I would like to have a clause in the constitution that permits individual practicing organisations to substitute the terminology partner (with for example associate, staff member, etc) if in their legal jurisdiction the term partner has unintended legal ramifications.

Edit: Clarification
I am not suggesting removing the term Partner, I am suggesting a clause to the effect:
Should the term "Partner" cause tensions due to the legal implications of said term within jurisdictions relevant to the "Organisation" and alternative term may be substituted (e.g. Member, Associate, Officer, Employee, etc)

Picking a single term Partner or otherwise will probably break even before we start trying to internationalise the constitution.

On a lighter note maybe we should use the term "Decihuman" in honour of the Lord of Lamas

What happened to the implicit domain "all partner relationships" from v4.0 - clause 5.2.5? Was it dropped on purpose (ie merged into "all company business and property")?

Currently, when a circle delegates a domain to a role, it (mostly) loses the ability to further govern it, except to "define or modify Policies that further grant or constrain the Role’s authority within the Domain". This is a strange carve-out, because almost any policy the circle might define could be argued to be doing exactly that; and if it's not interpreted that way, then the circle is overly limited from effectively defining what it wants to delegate control of and what it doesn't. This can all be avoided by simply still allowing a circle to define policies that govern a delegated domain.

Hi All
I have been holding off on some posts for the version 5 changes to start appearing so that I can avoid bringing up tensions that are already in the process of being resolved.

Is there an updated ETA on version 5 changes?
Thanks
Daniel

As Constitution Steward, I'd like to obsolete Cross Links as a distinct third type of link, without losing any needed functionality, so that the constitution is simpler, Holacracy practice is simpler, and common bad habits with overuse of Cross Links are avoided.

What about taking out the word "must" throughout the whole constitution?

There are very few things in life you really must. It always comes down to your personal powered "choice" (although recognizing we must to go the bathroom every now and then, but cannot come up with anything else yet..)

Sentences like "You must regularly consider how to complete each project you are actively working towards for your role, including by defining any Next-Actions useful to move the project forward"in 1.2.3 reads a lot more enaging when it starts with "You regularly consider...". and probably doesnt reduce the likelihood people actually take action on what now is a "must".

We've had a few pitches from real-world cases to allow using policies to set an expectation of initiating action (this would be invalid in v4.1). The primary argument is to make Holacracy easier to practice for novice practitioners - they often have trouble thinking of policies in Holacracy's definition, and will instead propose "policies" that demand a role initiate action. One argument against this is that it obscures what a role is really accountable for by hiding it in a policy.

But I think the bigger issue with allowing this, by far, is that it would create the potential for subtly destructive expectations and inappropriate use of pressure, which Holacracy otherwise heavily protects from. For example, using an accountability comes with a very clear constitutional definition of what that "accountability" actually lets you expect from someone, and it's not that "it will definitely be done". But if an expectation were encoded in a policy, it doesn't come with that protection.

So, should we allow it for ease of early practice and simplicity, or keep as-is to force clarity? If we should allow it, how can we still get the benefit of the protection described above? Perhaps some kind of clause that covers what you can expect from a policy that demands action perhaps, to provide a parallel construct there as we have in an accountability? Any thoughts?

Hi Folks - I have two outstanding items to address on my list, hopefully tomorrow, and then I think we're ready to ship the head revision as v4.1 (and then begin considering changes for v5.0). Does anyone know of any other changes that would be good to consider for v4.1? If so, please share now, as we're targeting end of week to have v4.1 finalized!

Also, if anyone is so inclined to double-check some of my recent changes, I'd appreciate it...

• Brian

As a partner trying to process a tension, I'd like to be able to invite someone else to represent my role (both operationally and in a governance meeting) and help me process the tension, so that I can engage someone more experienced with Holacracy's rules to be my "Holacracy Lawyer" and help me get my tensions processed.

I noticed that the constitution is formatted with double spaces after periods. I find this ugly and difficult to work with. It also goes against all style recommendations that I know.

Is there a specific reason that this is being used or would you accept an edit that replaced all ". " with ". "?

There's often some confusion with the term "Individual Action" - the word "Action" is in there, but it's not related to the concept of a "Next-Action" or really even a specific action of any sort. So I often hear people say "I'll take an Individual Action" when they really mean "I'll take a Next-Action" (which may or may not be an out-of-role action under the rules of Individual Action)...

This has raised the question of whether to rename the term, perhaps to "Individual Heroics" or "Out-of-Role Heroics" to emphasize that this means acting out-of-role. That has the downside of not allowing the current common turn-of-phrase that one is "taking Individual Action", although I'm sure other turns of phrase would show up instead (another candidate is "Out-of-Role Action", which wouldn't have that downside). And of course there's the downside that changing language is always a pain in the ass and it may or may not actually stick in practice for groups that are used to the old language.

So, is it worth trying to change this term, or should we leave it as-is? If change it, what would you change it to?

As a Circle Member, I'd like to be able to ask a fellow circle member to regularly share data via metrics, in the same way I can now for Checklist Items, so that I can get my role's goals met without needing lead link intervention when I need to see regular data from another role.

And:

As Constitution Steward, I'd like the same mechanism to be used for requesting ongoing reporting of both Checklist Items and Metrics, so that the constitution is simpler and Holacracy easier to learn, and so that the mechanisms become as similar as the conceptually equivalency of these two information sharing pathways.

In art 2.3.2 Exclusion for Multi-Filled Roles, at the end I think there is either a missing part or a lack of clarity in the following piece ", exactly as a Rep Link would were the Role a Sub-Circle,"
I get what is meant but I think this could be more clearly phrased.

2.3.2 Exclusion for Multi-Filled Roles
If multiple Partners are assigned to the same Defined Role in a Circle, the Circle may enact a Policy that limits how many of them are Core Circle Members as a result of that Role assignment. However, the Policy must allow at least one of the Partners filling the Role to represent it as a Core Circle Member, and must specify how that representative will be determined.

In addition, any Partners representing the Role have the duty to consider and process Tensions conveyed by the excluded Partners, exactly as a Rep Link would were the Role a Sub-Circle, unless the Policy defines an alternate pathway for the excluded Partners to process Tensions related to that Role.

Suggest a rephrase to accommodate the (DO, Delegate, Defer) aspects of Next-Actions.

Suggested rephrase:
“Next-Actions”, which are actions that could and would be useful, to process within the appropriate time, at least in the absence of competing priorities; and

I would recommend to change the structure of this paragraph as when you remove a Sub-Circle by collapsing it from a Circle back into just a Role, you may also selectively retain certain elements of the sub-circle within the Circle. At least, this is my take on it and the way GlassFrog works.

2.6.2 Removing Sub-Circles

Through its Governance Process, a Circle may remove a Sub-Circle. This can be done by removing the Sub-Circle and everything within entirely, or by selectively retaining certain elements of the Sub-Circle within the Circle. A Sub-Circle may also be removed by collapsing it from a Circle back into just a Role.

The definition of Policy is limited to a grant or constraint of authority, to filter out things that should really be accountabilities or agreements between people (or people and organization). However, the constitution defines other decisions that it claims are Policies but which don't clearly fit this definition, such as using a "policy" to encode a decision that could be made by a lead link, or changing the tactical meeting process via a "policy", or setting a time-limit for responding to asynchronous governance proposals in a "policy". The definition of policy needs to be expanded to allow for general "rules" like these, while still preventing accountabilities and other undesired constructs from sneaking into policies.

In the second paragraph of 2.6.1 Modifying Sub-Circles

A Circle may also move its own Defined Roles or Policies into a Sub-Circle, or move any from within the Sub-Circle into itself.

Does "Defined Roles" imply whole sub-circles as well?

From my understanding of 2.6.1 the governance process of Circle 1(C1) can promote Role 3(R3) from Sub-Circle 2(C2) into Circle 1.
eg: C1(R1,R2,C2(R3,R4)) -> C1(R1,R2,R3,C2(R4))

But does this mean it is valid governance also promote or demote whole sub-circles as if they were a defined role? Sub-Circle 2(C2) has it's own Sub-Circle(C3), can Circle 1 (C1) promote C3?
eg: C1(R1,R2,C2(R3,R4,C3(R5,R6))) -> C1(R1,R2,C2(R3,R4),C3(R5,R6))

Constitution v4.1 states that "each Circle may control its own functions and activities, as if a Domain of the Circle, for the purpose of defining Policies that limit the Circle’s Roles". A circle needs to be able to controls its own activities as if a domain for all purposes internal to the circle, not just for defining policies. For example, a circle should be able to delegate a part of that default domain to a role as a domain on that role, and thus grant that role the exclusive control of some part of the Circle's functions and activities. This is already done regularly in practice yet could currently be construed as unconstitutional.

I would suggest to change the word 'of' by 'to' in section 3.2.3 Testing Proposals

"The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking questions of the Proposer."

becomes:

"The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking questions to the Proposer."

Objection validity criterion d) in article 3.2.4 currently references the proposal validity criteria in article 3.2.2, which requires some mental gymnastics to understand.

I would propose to reproduce those criteria in the language of an objector (not a proposer), so that the objection validity criterion d) can stand on its own and be understood (more) clearly.

As Constitution Steward, I'd like a general way that circles can be formed and operated with no lead link to govern cross-stakeholder processes, so that the special-case exception allowing an Anchor Circle with no lead link can be replaced by whatever general pattern it is a special-case expression of.

And, another story pointing to the same implementation I think:

As the Lead Link of a Circle that has some processes and property to govern that are also highly intertwined with an external party (perhaps a circle within my organization, or one in another organization), I'd like to be able to form a new sub-circle in collaboration with that other entity and cede some control from each founding circle into it, yet without the new sub-circle needing to be fully "owned by" or contained within either founding circle, so that we can form joint ventures of various sorts to govern shared interests via a cross-cutting circle, without having to create a new entity and adopt the constitution separately for it (we'd currently have to do that to be able to each appoint cross-links to its Anchor Circle; and even if we did do that, it's still largely unclear how we delegate some of our control to that new entity and how it can influence us back across that boundary).

I looked that one up in Wikipedia when I encountered it for the first time in version 4.0. (Section 2.3.3, "Exclusion for De Minimis Allocation"). I had a hunch what it meant, but was not exactly sure.

I see the value in using precise terminology - in this sense, using a legal technical term could be helpful - but I also see that this language makes it difficult for people to understand the meaning right away.

Could a simpler, but equally precise wording be found for this?

A few organizations/circles have wanted to add custom fields to the definition of a Role/Circle or a Policy - e.g. adding a "Customer" field on a role. Perhaps a field like this would initially be used just to hold contextually-relevant information (e.g. which other role is the customer of the one in question), but it could also be referenced by other governance to make that field more meaningful (e.g. a policy requiring getting input from the designated Customer role before finishing a project or spending resources or whatever).

This brings up a couple of questions:

1. Should the constitution be flexible enough to not prevent a circle from defining a policy requiring all governance to include some custom field (e.g. "no one may create a role without defining its Customer"), or should it be unconstitutional to limit governance proposals with a requirement like this?

2. If your answer was that the constitution shouldn't prevent it, should it go further by having a built-in mechanism to more explicitly allow/support a circle adding custom fields to its governance entities (roles & policies)?

Of course, I'd especially love any real-world examples to support any answers you might offer...

Reading 2.3.1, I understand that a Circle's Secretary is not considered a "Core Circle Member".

Reading 3.2 and 2.3, I understand that only "Core Circle Members" are taking part in the Circle's Governance Process.

This is surprising to me: I believed to remember situations in my Holacracy training where in Objection round, the Secretary would raise a "not valid governance output" Objection. Now, it seems, that this is not possible in this way: rather, the objection would have to be raised by a Core Circle Member, and the Facilitator might then ask the Secretary to confirm (3.2.5 last paragraph).

Is this correct (that is: is this the intended behaviour)? Or shouldn't the Secretary rather also be considered a "Core Circle member" to be able to raise Objections themselves? (This seems more logical to me, but I may be overlooking something.)

In recent discussions, pertaining to Filling Roles, in the Facebook Group and the LinkedIn Group, Brian suggested to raise this as an issue here. I had mentioned that, when discussing it with a collaborator in a direct exchange of thought, I used the terms 'Assign', 'Appoint' and 'Elect' very deliberately (I noted in the constitution that the terms Appoint and Assign have been used interchangeably, which is common).

Out of the 3 terms 'Assign' is the only one that requires the role to exist prior to the person, so all authorities, duties, responsibilities are firmly vested in the Role and upon assignment a member is granted full access to exercising those (this is what makes them a Defined Role they are defined then assigned). The role is the recipient of the person, even though we sometimes state that we assign a role to a person, what we really say is that the role receives its enabler in the form of a person. The other element that separates the 'Assign' is the need that generated the Role, assigned roles are generated by Organisational need, not by a human need.

The terms 'Appoint' and 'Elect' both are reliant upon the existence of people prior to roles they are generated by Human need. So all Authority, duties, and responsibilities rest in the person, the person in this instance is the receiver in that the appointed role enables the person to express the authorities through the means of the Role. In other words these roles are not needed unless there is more than one person.

What I have come to appreciates is that there are the Core Defined Roles (Assigned) which are purely Organisational or structural; then there are the Non-core Non-defined Roles (Elected) e.g. Facilitator and Secretary, which are purely Human or relational and then you have the Core Non-defined Roles (Elected/Appointed) e.g. Lead Link, Rep-Link and Cross-Link which are generated out of Human need but respond to Organisational need and as consequence become a hybrid.

This raises an interesting point, there are as a result three very distinct 'Types of Roles' differing in natures which deserve (I think) differentiating treatment. Core Defined Roles have been addressed through the term 'Assign', Non-core Non-defined Roles have been addressed through the term 'Elect', it is my humble opinion that Core Non-Defined Roles would best be serves through the term 'Appoint'.
The question then would be how do we define and address 'Appoint' and how and by who would this be enacted within the constitution?

As an Organisation is an eco-SYSTEM of Autonomous HUMAN alliances in Holacratic terms, there will always be a need for Elections, Appointment, and Assigning functions. Holacracy simply creates an environment where each is used in its appropriate context and thereby protects the freedom and integrity of the whole and its parts.