Layer 0 · Identity
Identity Constraints Register
- Layer: 0 — Identity & Scope
- Status: Draft — not yet adopted
- RCOS reference: §2.4, §2.5
Identity constraints declare the non-negotiable boundaries on participation, behavior, and governance that define what EcoHubs 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
Constraints on how authority is held and exercised within EcoHubs.
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:
| 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
Constraints on how EcoHubs and its mechanisms may be used economically.
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:
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-003 | EcoHubs 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
Constraints on EcoHubs’ relationship with ecosystems and biodiversity.
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 — EcoHubs 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.
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-004 | EcoHubs 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
Constraints on EcoHubs’ identity as a non-ideological, pluralistic structure.
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:
| ID | Constraint | Enforcement mechanism | Added | Decision record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-006 | The structural layer of EcoHubs — 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] |
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 |
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:
- Decision type: Constitutional
- Version:
- Decision record: