Fruit Haven

Layer 0 · Identity

Scope Declaration

  • Layer: 0 — Identity & Scope
  • Status: Stub — not yet adopted
  • RCOS reference: §2.2, §2.5

In-Scope Assets

RCOS definition2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4
  • 2.2.1 The community MUST explicitly declare the scope of what it governs.
  • 2.2.2 The scope declaration MUST include, at minimum:
  • 2.2.4 Anything not explicitly declared as in scope MUST be treated as out of scope.

Read 2.2 Scope Declaration in the RCOS spec ↗

Why enumerate every governed asset?
If the community has not explicitly named an asset as in-scope, it isn’t — full stop. Listing assets by name closes the gap where informal claims of authority grow over undeclared resources, and prevents scope creep.
  1. The RCOS specification and all versioned artifacts in this repository
  2. The shared treasury (currently held in the Safe multi-sig wallet)
  3. The Fruit Haven platform (fruithaven.land)
  4. The Fruit Haven website (fruithaven.land)
  5. The RCOS hosted website (blueprint.ecohubs.community)
  6. The Fruit Haven brand, domain names, public channels, and social media accounts
  7. Pilot community resources explicitly designated as community-governed

In-Scope Decision Domains

RCOS definition2.2.1, 2.2.2
  • 2.2.1 The community MUST explicitly declare the scope of what it governs.
  • 2.2.2 The scope declaration MUST include, at minimum:

Read 2.2 Scope Declaration in the RCOS spec ↗

Why name decision domains, not just assets?
Scope isn’t only about stuff — it’s about which kinds of questions the community gets to answer collectively. Naming decision domains makes it unambiguous where collective authority applies and where it doesn’t.
  1. Governance rules and decision processes (Layer 2)
  2. Membership rules, states, and admission (Layer 1)
  3. Treasury and shared resource allocation (Layer 3)
  4. The RCOS specification and its evolution
  5. Fruit Haven-owned platforms, websites, and public channels
  6. Support and facilitation offered to existing and emerging communities applying RCOS (meetings, guidance, resources)
  7. Partnerships, external collaborations, and use of the Fruit Haven brand

In-Scope Activities and Responsibilities

RCOS definition2.2.1, 2.2.2
  • 2.2.1 The community MUST explicitly declare the scope of what it governs.
  • 2.2.2 The scope declaration MUST include, at minimum:

Read 2.2 Scope Declaration in the RCOS spec ↗

Why declare the work the community owns?
Authority without owned responsibility produces paralysis; responsibility without declared authority produces burnout and blame. Listing the activities the community collectively governs makes the match explicit.
  1. Maintaining and evolving the RCOS specification
  2. Reviewing and admitting new members
  3. Managing and reporting on the shared treasury
  4. Operating and maintaining community platforms and websites
  5. Facilitating, supporting and documenting pilot communities
  6. Publishing learnings, failures, and adaptations openly
  7. Stewarding the Fruit Haven brand, public presence, and social media accounts
  8. Researching and developing new approaches, tools, and methods to make regenerative communities more accessible, resilient, and replicable — including software development and applied experiments

Explicitly Out of Scope

RCOS definition2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5
  • 2.2.3 The scope declaration MUST explicitly list what is out of scope.
  • 2.2.4 Anything not explicitly declared as in scope MUST be treated as out of scope.
  • 2.2.5 The community MUST NOT exercise authority over persons, assets, or domains that are declared out of scope.

Read 2.2 Scope Declaration in the RCOS spec ↗

Why name what the community must not touch?
An unstated boundary is no boundary at all. Explicit out-of-scope items protect members from the community reaching into their private lives and finances, and protect independent communities from overreach.
  1. Underlying server infrastructure, hosting accounts, and third-party service contracts
  2. Personal income, private finances, and private bank accounts of members
  3. Private relationships and personal living arrangements of members (except where safety-critical conditions apply as defined in Layer 4)
  4. Off-network projects and businesses that do not use Fruit Haven assets or operate under Fruit Haven governance
  5. The internal governance of independent communities that have adopted RCOS — Fruit Haven stewards the standard, not the communities using it
  6. Sovereign properties: Any property, should all the owners agree using the consensus method and the unanimity decision rule, may shed the title of “Fruit Haven” and effectively leave the project.

Ratification Record

  • Adopted:
  • Decision type: Constitutional
  • Version:
  • Decision record:

← Back to Identity