Holacracy-constitution: Limit non-partners filling Roles to only those who have agreed to enact all duties required of the assignment

[tylerdanke]

1.4.3, 1.4.1, and 3.2 refer to external contractors, volunteers who are not Partners but who fill a role. This is not consistent with the definition of the term partner in the preamble.

[brianjrobertson]

I don't see any inconsistency; someone can agree to operationally do some work without "agreeing to take part in the governance and operations of the Organization" and without "also agreeing to be bound by [the Constitution's] duties and constraints." Am I missing something? How could it be clearer?

[tylerdanke]

I think what i am getting at is that it is awkward to allow someone role assignment without being a partner with all of the constitutional duties of filling a role. I wonder if those volunteers or external contractors should be Role Supporters and not Role Leads. Then it would be explicit as to who would have the constitutional role filling duties.

[brianjrobertson]

Hmm, I can see the value of limiting external parties to Role Supporters unless they've agreed to enact all of the duties a partner Role Lead would have... that makes a lot of sense. Anyone else have thoughts on this?