Identity Constraints Register
Identity constraints are the non-negotiable behavioural, ethical, and structural boundaries that shape who the community is. Unlike invariants (which protect the system itself), identity constraints define how members and the community relate to people, ecosystems, and ideologies.
Download this template
Generated 2026-08-31 · Download all templates
Active Identity Constraints
Which non-negotiable rules follow from who we are as a community — about behaviour, joining, culture or land?
RCOS clauses 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4
- 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:
- 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 declare identity constraints explicitly?
Every community has implicit rules — "we don't do that here." Implicit rules become tools of arbitrary enforcement: whoever has social power decides what they mean. Writing identity constraints down, and requiring them to be testable through defined processes, is what turns an informal norm into something a member can actually rely on or contest.
How to fill this in
Each constraint must be testable and enforceable through a defined process — not vague aspirations. Common categories from RCOS §2.4.2: ethical/behavioural boundaries, participation prerequisites, non-negotiable cultural or ecological constraints. Reference Layer 4 for enforcement, Layer 1 for participation consequences.
- <Constraint 1, e.g. Members must not act in ways that concentrate power, extract value, or cause harm to people, land, or governance integrity.>
- <Constraint 2, e.g. The community may not be used as a vehicle for speculative financial gain — internal economic mechanisms exist to recognize contribution, not generate profit.>
- <Constraint 3, e.g. No member or role may claim authority that is not explicitly granted through the governance system.>
- <Constraint 4, e.g. The community must not cause sustained net harm to local ecosystems, land, or biodiversity.>
- <Constraint 5, e.g. Ecological impact must be considered in all significant resource, land, and infrastructure decisions.>
- <Constraint 6, e.g. The structural layer of the community must remain non-ideological and non-normative — it provides scaffolding, not a prescribed way of living.>
- <Constraint 7, e.g. No specific belief system, spirituality, culture, or political ideology may be required as a condition of membership or participation.>
- <Constraint 8, e.g. Diversity of approaches to regenerative living is a feature, not a problem.>
What to cover
- Which rules hold for everyone taking part, whatever a majority wants on a given day?
- For each one: who does it apply to?
- What does it mean for them in practice — what may they not do, or what must be true before they can join?
- Why is it needed — what would go wrong here without it?
Examples
Only people aged 18 or over can become members.
No belief system, religion or political view may be required to join or take part.
Nothing the community does may cause lasting harm to the land it stewards; every land and building decision says how it was checked.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Enforcement and Testability
How would anyone check whether a constraint is being met — and what happens if it is not?
RCOS clauses 2.4.3, 2.4.4
Why must constraints be testable, not informal?
A constraint that cannot be tested is a constraint that gets enforced by whoever has the most social capital in the room. Defining how each constraint is detected, who raises it, and through which process it is resolved is what prevents identity rules from becoming tools of arbitrary exclusion.
How to fill this in
For each constraint above (or as a general policy), describe how a violation is identified and addressed. Reference the Conflict Resolution Ladder (Layer 4) and any role responsible for monitoring (Layer 5).
- <How violations are detected and reported.>
- <Which Layer 4 process handles violations of which class of constraint.>
- <Which roles or bodies are responsible for monitoring and review.>
What to cover
- For each rule: how would anyone notice that it is not being kept?
- Which written process handles a breach, so it is not left to whoever objects loudest?
- Who keeps an eye on it, and how often is that looked at again?
Examples
Each constraint names how a breach would show up and who keeps an eye on it: the land group checks the ecological constraints on its quarterly walk, and anyone may report a breach of a behavioural constraint to the accountability coordinator. Every reported breach goes through our accountability process — never a private warning or quiet exclusion. We review the whole register at the yearly reflection meeting.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Conditions for Change
How are our non-negotiables added, changed or removed — and who has to agree?
RCOS clauses 2.4.1, 2.5.2
How to fill this in
Identity constraints are constitutional — describe the decision type, threshold, and ratification process required to add, remove, or amend a constraint.
Identity constraints may only be added, removed, or amended through a Constitutional decision as defined in the Decision Matrix (Layer 2), requiring <threshold> and a ratification period of no less than <duration>. Any change must be recorded in the Version History (Layer 6).
What to cover
- What kind of decision does it take to add, change or remove one of our non-negotiables — an ordinary one, or one of our highest-level (constitutional) decisions?
- How many people have to agree, and who counts — everyone, full members only, or those present?
- How long do we wait between agreeing a change and it taking effect, so anyone affected can raise concerns or prepare?
- Does removing a non-negotiable need the same bar as adding or changing one?
Examples
Adding, changing or removing an identity constraint is a constitutional decision. The proposal must be shared with all full members at least 21 days before the meeting that decides it, and it passes only if at least three quarters of all full members vote in favour. The change takes effect 30 days after the decision, and both the old and new wording stay in the register's history.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Ratification Record
Who adopted these constraints, when, and how was it decided?
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Constitutional
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>