Plural Leaders

Plural users who apply for and enter leadership are encouraged to be clear about which system members are (or are not) applying for leadership. Objections to applications of systems may specify if they don't want specific system members to be in leadership, instead of rejecting the system as a whole entity.

Due to the complexity of managing such a situation, system members may not occupy different sections of leadership (i.e. one member can't be Developer while another is Planner), all approved system members considered any form of leader are considered to share all approved positions collectively.

Plural systems in leadership still only get a single vote, and only count as a single seat in Tier 2 bodies. Prolonged fronting by unapproved system members will cause them to be forcibly placed "on break" until an approved system member is available. For short-term fronting (around one day) unapproved system members are requested to refrain from using leadership channels, except to pass on important messages by the request of approved members. Unapproved system members may not participate in Mediator duties at all.

Blends/fusions of system members containing both approved and unapproved system members simultaneously, as well as new system members that form after the approval process, will be considered approved leaders by default (for simplicity). To counterbalance this, at their discretion, the Mediators may by majority vote remove individual overly-disruptive members/blends from approved leadership - be it temporarily or permanently - so long as they do not remove the entire system, which requires the normal formal accountability process. Artificial restriction of a system by stripping leadership from, say, almost all system members who front regularly without good reason may be found to be an abuse of power in some circumstances.

Systems whose approved members cannot or do not front regularly enough to reliably execute their duties may be found in nonfeasance collectively, especially in Tier 2 roles, and have their whole system's roles removed like any similarly unavailable singlet leader.

In general, actions taken by unapproved members as users do not reflect on approved members' character where leadership is concerned. Unapproved system members also may not take away approved system members' agency (such as by "resigning" for them). However, in extreme cases, systems with sufficiently disruptive, chaotic, or malicious system members may sadly have to be removed from leadership entirely, even if the rest of the system contains very good leaders - especially if the disruptive system members make a habit of abusing leadership privileges they shouldn't have access to.