Unclear Circle definition

[makdisse]

In the constitution v5 we have the following:

1.3.1 Breaking Down Roles The inside of every Role is a Circle.

So a Circle is a container of Roles, and the 'inside of each of those roles is a circle' meaning 'Inside every role there is a Circle'? The phrase 'The inside of every Role is a Circle' is confusing as it does not properly convey a complete idea.

It looks like there is some kind of recursion in the concept of Circle. A Role can (or must as conveyed by 'the inside of every role is a circle) have Circles and Circles contain roles. If this is the case the text should make this recursion clear.

[brianjrobertson]

I couldn't find any clearer way to express the recursion that what's there, though I'd love ideas if you have any. To be clear, "A Role can have Circles" misses the mark - it's not that a Role can include Circles, which makes them separate concepts with the Role being a possible container of sorts for one or more Circles; it's that the inside of a Role is a Circle (a single Circle, not potentially many) - a Role and a Circle are thus the same concept/entity, with each word just expressing a different perspective view of the entity (from the outside view it is a "Role", from the inside view it is a "Circle").

[makdisse]

a Role and a Circle are thus the same concept/entity, with each word just expressing a different perspective view of the entity (from the outside view it is a "Role", from the inside view it is a "Circle")

This explanation helped me understand what you meant with The inside of every Role is a Circle. Maybe this exact explanation could be in the text.

1) Considering that a Role and a Circle are thus the same concept/entity what is the benefit of using different words to express the same concept?

2) So a Role is an organizational construct that a person can fill to pursue or express a capacity, potential, or goal. A Circle is a container for organizing Roles and Policies around a common Purpose. These explanations define two different entities. One is filled by a person to pursue a purpose and the other is linking people (roles) around a common purpose. I feel that I am not being able to understand the concept of a Circle as you intent it to be. It feels that either the Role or the Circle is a redundant concept and could be merged by just defining that 'a circle can be energized by a person or by linked circles that are in turn energized by people'. If there is anything else besides the constitution that you believe it would help me understand the concept of a Circle/Role please let me know. As soon as I properly understand it I might be able to suggest changes to the text that would have helped me understand it as intended in the first place.