Layer 1 · Membership
1 Membership Agreement
- Layer: 1 — Membership System
- Status: Stub — not yet adopted
- RCOS reference: §3.4, §3.5, §3.8
Signed (or explicitly acknowledged) by every member at the time of admission. Defines the rights and obligations of each membership state.
Membership State on Signing
RCOS definition3.1.2, 3.1.4
- 3.1.2 At minimum, the following membership states MUST exist:
- 3.1.4 No individual MAY hold multiple membership states simultaneously.
Why declare state at signing?
Membership is not a single binary. A person joining must know exactly which state they are entering — Trial or Full — because the state determines what they can do and what is expected of them. Naming it at the moment of consent prevents ambiguity later about what they actually signed up for.
<Membership state assigned at signing — to be defined.>
Member Rights
RCOS definition3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4
- 3.4.1 The community MUST explicitly define member rights.
- 3.4.3 Rights and obligations MUST be symmetrical and proportionate to membership state.
- 3.4.4 No obligation MAY be enforced without a corresponding, documented right.
Why enumerate rights explicitly?
Rights that are not written down are rights that can be quietly withdrawn. Enumerating them makes the community’s commitments legible, enforceable, and symmetrical with the obligations members are asked to carry. Without this list, obligations become open-ended demands with no reciprocal protection.
<Member rights — to be defined.>
Member Obligations
RCOS definition3.4.2, 3.4.4, 3.4.5
- 3.4.2 The community MUST explicitly define member obligations.
- 3.4.4 No obligation MAY be enforced without a corresponding, documented right.
- 3.4.5 Obligations MUST NOT be open-ended or undefined.
Why bound obligations tightly?
Open-ended obligations are how communities slide into exploitation — “contribute more,” “be available,” “show up” with no defined limit. Listing obligations discretely, and tying each one to a corresponding right, keeps the ask bounded and contestable. A member must always be able to tell whether they are meeting the agreement or being asked for something beyond it.
<Member obligations — to be defined.>
Participation and Contribution Expectations
RCOS definition3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4
- 3.5.1 Participation expectations MUST be explicitly defined.
- 3.5.2 Acceptable forms of contribution MUST be listed.
- 3.5.3 Substitution of participation (e.g., outsourcing labor) MUST be explicitly governed.
- 3.5.4 Persistent non-participation MUST trigger an accountability process as defined in Layer 4.
Why define participation in numbers?
“Active member” means nothing without a threshold. A defined minimum — in time, category, and cadence — turns participation from a feeling into a fact, so nobody has to guess whether they are in good standing, and nobody can be accused of drifting without evidence. It also makes the line between a genuine absence and quiet abandonment visible early enough to act on.
<Participation and contribution expectations — to be defined.>
Due Process Reference
Why re-state due process here?
The Membership Agreement is the one document every member actually reads and consents to. Naming due process here — not only in Layer 4 — guarantees that no member can be removed or restricted under a rule they were not shown when they joined. It closes the gap between what the community promises and what it can do.
Any forced exit, suspension, or access restriction follows Layer 4 due process and the Exit & Separation Protocol.
<Link to confirmed Exit & Separation Protocol — to be added.>
Consent Acknowledgment
Why require explicit consent?
Consent that is assumed is consent that can be denied later. Requiring an explicit act — signing, clicking, acknowledging — at a known moment binds the member to the specific artifact versions in force that day, and gives the community a defensible record that the agreement was entered freely and knowingly.
By entering the community through the defined onboarding process, the member explicitly consents to the terms of this agreement and the Layer 0 artifacts in force at the time of admission.
Ratification Record
- Adopted:
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version:
- Decision record: