Layer 0 · Identity
Identity Constraints Register
- Layer: 0 — Identity & Scope
- Status: Present
- RCOS reference: §2.4, §2.5
Identity constraints declare the non-negotiable boundaries on participation, behavior, and governance that define what Fruit Haven fundamentally is and is not. Constraints listed here apply to all members, roles, and activities within the governed scope. They may not be enforced implicitly or informally — each constraint includes a defined enforcement pathway.
Governance Constraints
RCOS definition2.4.1, 2.4.2
- 2.4.1 The community MUST declare any identity-level constraints that materially affect participation, behavior, or governance.
- 2.4.2 Identity constraints MAY include, but are not limited to:
Constraints on how authority is held and exercised within Fruit Haven.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-001 | Members must not act in ways that concentrate power, extract value, or cause harm to people, land, or the community’s governance integrity. | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4); any member may raise a concern via the Conflict Resolution Ladder | [link] | |
| IC-002 | No member, founder, or role may claim authority that is not explicitly granted through the governance system. | Authority Registry (Layer 2) defines all granted authority; any undeclared authority claim is invalid by construction and subject to the Accountability Protocol | [link] |
Economic Constraints
RCOS definition2.4.1, 2.4.2
- 2.4.1 The community MUST declare any identity-level constraints that materially affect participation, behavior, or governance.
- 2.4.2 Identity constraints MAY include, but are not limited to:
Constraints on how Fruit Haven and its mechanisms may be used economically.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-003 | Fruit Haven may not be used as a vehicle for speculative financial gain — internal economic mechanisms exist to recognize contribution, not generate profit. | Treasury Ruleset and Internal Economy Protocol (Layer 3); any proposal to create speculative financial mechanisms is invalid under this constraint; Full Members may veto via re-vote | [link] |
Ecological Constraints
RCOS definition2.4.1, 2.4.2
- 2.4.1 The community MUST declare any identity-level constraints that materially affect participation, behavior, or governance.
- 2.4.2 Identity constraints MAY include, but are not limited to:
Why are ecological constraints partially deferred?
Constraints IC-004 and IC-005 express a non-negotiable design intent — Fruit Haven must not degrade the conditions for life. They are fully enforceable as a basis for raising conflicts and objecting to proposals. The remaining gap is the definition of a measurable threshold for “sustained net harm” in a networked community context — this cannot be defined without operational data. Defining that threshold is a deferred governance task, tracked in future-proposals.md.
Constraints on Fruit Haven’ relationship with ecosystems and biodiversity.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-004 | Fruit Haven and its communities must not cause sustained net harm to local ecosystems, land, or biodiversity — practices that degrade the conditions for life are incompatible with the primary purpose. | Partial. Behavioral/governance enforcement: any member may raise a concern via the Conflict Resolution Ladder; proposals visibly degrading ecosystems may be objected to via re-vote. Measurable threshold for “sustained net harm” in a networked community context is deferred — see future-proposals.md | [link] | |
| IC-005 | Ecological impact must be considered in all significant resource, land, and infrastructure decisions. | Partial. Process requirement: all Strategic and Constitutional decisions affecting resources, land, or infrastructure must include an ecological impact statement; omission is grounds for a re-vote request. Criteria for what constitutes a “significant” decision are deferred — see future-proposals.md | [link] |
Structural and Cultural Constraints
RCOS definition2.4.1, 2.4.2
- 2.4.1 The community MUST declare any identity-level constraints that materially affect participation, behavior, or governance.
- 2.4.2 Identity constraints MAY include, but are not limited to:
Constraints on Fruit Haven’ identity as a non-ideological, pluralistic structure.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-006 | The structural layer of Fruit Haven — its governance, membership, and operating system — must remain non-ideological and non-normative. It provides scaffolding, not a prescribed way of living. | Any proposal embedding ideological requirements in RCOS Core or governance artifacts is invalid under this constraint; reinforced by Invariant INV-004 | [link] | |
| IC-007 | No specific belief system, spirituality, culture, or political ideology may be required as a condition of membership or participation. | Membership Agreement (Layer 1) must not list ideological conditions; any enforcement of such conditions is subject to the Accountability Protocol | [link] | |
| IC-008 | Diversity of approaches to regenerative living is a feature, not a problem — the structure exists to enable this diversity, not constrain it. | Any governance action that systematically excludes members based on their approach to regenerative living is subject to the Conflict Resolution Ladder | [link] |
Ethics and Lifestyle Constraints
Constraints on the ethical principles, dietary practices, and lifestyle guidelines.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-009 | Veganism: No animal-derived foods may be brought onto the property, consumed, or harmed by anyone present. | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
| IC-010 | Raw Foods: The aspiration is to consume primarily raw foods. Long-term/indefinite consumption of cooked foods is not permitted. | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
| IC-011 | Animals: The keeping of domesticated farm animals and pets is prohibited. | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
| IC-012 | Hygiene: All residents must maintain general cleanliness of their body, clothing, and living quarters to prevent contagious issues (e.g. staph, scabies). | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
| IC-013 | Substance Abuse: Dependency or regular use of alcohol, marijuana, or mind-altering substances is prohibited. (Occasional/responsible plant-based spiritual use permitted). | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
| IC-014 | Nudism: Permitted, but must respect locals/neighbors by refraining from nudity when in sight of them. | Accountability Protocol (Layer 4) | 2019-05-17 | proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md |
Enforcement Principles
RCOS definition2.4.3, 2.4.4
- 2.4.3 Identity constraints MUST be testable and enforceable through defined processes.
- 2.4.4 Identity constraints MUST NOT be enforced implicitly or informally.
Why require constraints to be testable and enforceable?
Writing a constraint that cannot be acted on is performative — it creates the appearance of accountability without the substance. Testability means there is a defined process through which a member can raise a violation. If no such process exists, the constraint is an aspiration, not a rule. Making that distinction explicit here is what separates implicit culture from enforceable governance.
Identity constraints MUST be testable and enforceable through defined processes, and MUST NOT be enforced implicitly or informally.
| Constraint | Enforcement status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| IC-001 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-002 | Enforceable | Via Authority Registry (Layer 2) + Layer 4 |
| IC-003 | Enforceable | Via Layer 3 artifacts + re-vote mechanism |
| IC-004 | Partial | Behavioral enforcement defined; measurable threshold deferred |
| IC-005 | Partial | Process requirement defined; “significance” threshold deferred |
| IC-006 | Enforceable | Via Layer 0 Invariant INV-004 + proposal invalidity |
| IC-007 | Enforceable | Via Membership Agreement (Layer 1) + Layer 4 |
| IC-008 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Conflict Resolution Ladder |
| IC-009 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-010 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-011 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-012 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-013 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
| IC-014 | Enforceable | Via Layer 4 Accountability Protocol |
Changes to the Register
Identity constraints may only be added, modified, or removed through a Constitutional decision (≥⅔ supermajority + 30-day ratification period), as defined in the Decision Matrix (Layer 2) and the Change Protocol (Layer 6). Any change must be recorded in the Version History (Layer 6).
Ratification Record
- Adopted: 2019-05-17 (Original Bylaws), 2026-05-19 (RCOS adaptation)
- Decision type: Constitutional
- Version: v1.0.0
- Decision record: proposals/passed/2019-05-17_fh1-bylaws.md