Is "default" the right word here? Maybe "community-supported" or something like that?

"Currently supported"?

Strike that I see your meaning now.

I guess the question is are we providing some default values and others can just generate their own as needed. Which I think fits the word "default", if we are going to update this ontology with more options, then "community-supported" makes more sense.

We don't have to do anything for more values to appear. Anyone could publish some RDF at their URL of choice:

<> a fedora-access:ResourceStatus
<> rdfs:label "Obsolete"

or whatever and that's a perfectly legitimate ResourceStatus for them to use.

Agreed, so wouldn't the two options that come "out-of-the-box" be "default"?

No, not the way I use that word. active would be a default, because it is the choice you get if you make no other choice. That's what a default is, to me. You're talking about the range of choices you have if you add none of your own, and that, to me, sounds more like "standardly-understood" (which sounds awkward) or "community-supported" (hence my suggestion), or maybe "out-of-the-box" would be good.

Ok, I see where you are going.
I like "out-of-the-box" because it defines that these are just what are there now and you can build on as you like, without the inference that there needs to community support for changes to your use of this property.
But as you have more experience with this, I will give you the final word: "community-supported" or "out-of-the-box"?

The way you characterize "out-of-the-box" makes it sound better-- let's go with that. It's informal, but I think it's accurate.