Some thing has to change... I think getting rid of circle leads is the easiest way to go.

Everything should be a "campaign" - that's how it is in the DApp right now.

Circles are decent Schelling points, a collection around a less generic cause than giving - which can be a bit abstract to outsiders perhaps. I'd suggest Circles are perfect as meta categories but should change over time (split/merge/morph) based on the externalities faced and how they choose to govern themselves!! Some circles may prefer to have top down mgmt (shudder*) but if they want a circle lead why not?

Circles definition:
https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/circle.html

Thanks Griff for picking that conversation back up again! I think the goal is to have real circles (like Josh's Sociocracy link) leading a campaign (we call that DAOfication usually), so to have responsibilities effectively shared across more than one person. It is good to experiment with different options like we do now for Governance (Roles Sheet and Meeting), Unicorn DAC (Aragon), Social Coding (Colony) ... however - circles themselves should decide where they want to go.

All for more bottom up, Dani said it perfectly. All for keeping the circles, it's also how our updated site will be organized, our roles are linked to it and all the other things Griff mentioned. For external people it's just important to find their way when coming in, and even for us. Structure does not mean hierarchy but it does mean some clarity and stability.

My initial thoughts as a newbie is more with the naming structure. To me the 'circles' concept isn't clear. It seems to me we are mixing external facing projects with internal facing administration. So external facing - the DAPP is a project, social coding seems to me to be an area of focus, communication is internal facing coordination, governance is internal facing coordination. I would also consider things like an 'all staff' meeting not governance meeting for naming. out of space :(

Circles were an easy way for me to understand the varying roles of everyone within the Giveth Galaxy. I also believe that leadership (in a holacratic sense) breeds responsibility and cohesion for these loosely defined "departments" - but as I am not totally in the loop on the frictions of having leads vs not, I am okay with scrapping circle leads if that is the preference of those in the roles!

Circles, as defined by holacracy, are a group of roles that contribute to the same purpose (Build the DApp, Coordinate comms for Giveth in general...). It is inevitable that people that have roles on development would cluster together, and that the comms roles coordinates to divide work. Having a name for it helps define its limitations: it's only a functional denomination, not a product. 100% with Michael and Jeff on the differentiation between external products and internal organization.