---
# System prepended metadata

title: About mixing Director & Domain Lead roles

---

# About mixing Director & Domain Lead roles

In the regulation proposal:

> Individuals MAY be a Domain Lead for multiple Domains and/or be a Board Director at the same time. However it's strongly preferred for them to hold only one such role at a time, in order to promote diverse and meritocratic leadership and limit risks.

## Domain Lead for multiple Domains

When it comes to being a Domain Lead for multiple Domains, there are some reasons why that's *not preferred*, but allowed.

The pros:
- A trusted and qualified person will have the ability to help out in this role, which they couldn't if they were barred from the role due to a 1-role limit.
- The maximum on Domain Leads per Domain is a soft limit. There is always the technical possibility of accepting candidates, without needing to remove anyone.

The cons:
- It makes it more painful if that person were to resign or leave the project.
- By not having an "empty slot" it may deter others from applying for the role.
- Attention may be spread thin.

This is a trade-off we can make on a case-by-case basis.

By explicitly making it "not preferred" in the *regulation*, if they community believes the Board is making a mistake by not accepting a candidate, they can press the matter and point to this regulation. Suggesting that the bus-factor risks and fair opportunities principle weigh heavily in this decision.

## Domain Lead + Board Director

When the two roles are mixed, I think it is different.

The pros:
- By explicitly appointing someone as Domain Lead, you preserve some clarity of who to talk to, and who's responsible for the Domain*.
- Domain Leads can generally act within their Domain with less bureacracy than the Board.

_* = Though the responsibility aspect is actually misleading._

Noting:
- The Board (as a group) keeps the responsibility for the overall Programme. Meaning by being Domain Lead, it *doesn't add new, or share existing responsibilities*.
- The Board (as a group) is able to overrule Domain Lead decisions, implying it can make the same decisions in case there are 0 Domain Leads for that Domain (if it was just created for example). So it *doesn't grant new capabilities* enabling them to help better than before.

The cons:
- It doesn't make clear whether it is temporary in nature or not.
- The Board has a hard 7 person limit. So people who's attention is spread thin risk causing bottlenecks on the Board's execution side.
- It makes it easier for the Board to "keep themselves in power" as they're no longer forced to choose from candidates outside of themselves.
- It creates power asymmetries within the Board and Domain Leads.

Examples of the power asymmetries. Suppose Alice is a Board Director and Domain Lead of the "FOO" Domain. And Bob is only a FOO Domain Lead. Alice will have a partial influence / voting power to use a Board decision to overrule Bob, while Bob does not.

Conversely, when the decision to appoint/remove Alice needs to be made by the Board, does the Board treat this like a conflict of interest scenario and remove Alice from the decision making process? If so, the Board has to both *decide about* Alice and needs to work with Alice in a high-trust capacity. Risking interpersonal tensions.

Since I feel the cons / risks are greater than being a Domain Lead for more than one Domain, and the benefits are smaller. I don't see a good reason to decide on this on a case-by-case basis and think it will benefit the long-term sustainability of the Programme to disallow this situation.

### Alternatives

If the major benefit of an explicit appointment is clarity, my first reaction would be appointments with limitations. Like the previous interim-lead idea. Or something like a designated supporter from the Board's side.

Some goals to meet with that:
- Making clear to the whole Working Group who to ask about a Domain.
- Making clear what happens when other candidates are appointed.
- Doesn't create power asymmetries that persist unless there's explicit steps (like removing someone as a Domain Lead).
- Addresses the fact that the Board is prone to bottlenecks if attention is spread thin.
- Avoids perverse incentives, such as "keeping yourself in power".
