Initial constitution:

Honestly, this entire thing has seemed overkill to me from the very first mention of it. It seems like performative self-hamstringing when, at the end of the day, the core developers are the ones who run the project by nature of actively developing and running the project. I understand the image you're wanting to portray on behalf of Composr, but I don't understand why you're so eager to present policies to a very small audience that limit your own power and potential ability to get things done.

I went into this intending to vote "Yay" anyway, because I don't think it really matters. But I came across some specific parts I'd like to point out as being overkill:

Section IV - Voting Requirements
 

• "Effective after the first stable release of Composr CMS version 11, a vote must be conducted for the implementation of feature requests listed on the tracker, or for feature changes to the https:// composr.app homesite, except if one or more of the following conditions apply:"
  • What you're saying here is that implementing feature requests isn't allowed unless the request was sponsored in some way (with money or points). Typically, in open source, "those who do, decide." Why would you tell someone they can't do the work of implementing a feature request unless they get people to pay for it?
  • There's also an exception for if the change "is small and would be implemented as a patch release." This sounds like anything short of a major version bump means it's okay to implement new features, anyway. So why have this entire section at all?
• "A vote must be conducted for the appeal of a member's ban if multiple other members express legitimate concern about the member having been banned."
  • How is "legitimate" defined, and why does it need to be specified that concern must be "legitimate?"
  • Does "multiple other members" mean two or more? If so, why not specify two or more?
• "Votes and their results shall be kept hidden until voting closes."
  • I just noticed this after submitting this post and going to put my "hidden" vote in; posts are public, and posts on voting threads are likely to indicate how someone intends to vote, so I'm not sure how effective this will be.

Section V - Closure
 

• "The measure, or similar measures, shall not be proposed for a re-vote or opened again for at least 3 months following the closing of the votes."
  • You specifically stated you intend to repeat the constitution ratification vote monthly until it's passed. That would be a breach of this line. Whether or not the constitution's taken effect yet, consider that you have a real-world scenario where you've deemed it best to act in a way that contradicts this line already. Is this line optimal?

Section VI - Requirements to Ratify
 

• "This requirement is in no respects to the number of members who vote."
  • I don't know what this sentence means. I tried Googling the term "is in no respects" to see if it meant something different than "in no respect," and it doesn't seem to be a separate phrase (and may be a typo?) Anyway, the previous sentences (the entire rest of the section) stated percentages, so it should go without saying that the number of members who vote is irrelevant.

Section VII - Constitutionality
 

• "No vote shall be conducted on matters regarding the following as they are deemed, by the definition of this section, unconstitutional:
  Anything that violates the rights of members as defined in Article I Section I
  The rights defined in this Constitution are absolute and cannot be infringed."
  • Does this mean Article 1 Section 1 can't be revised with a future amendment? Assuming not, this would be simpler stated as "Anything violating or contradicting the terms of this Constitution (except for constitutional amendments)."

Section I - Rights
 

• Given that Composr is released under an open-source software license, I find it redundant and unnecessary to enumerate rights such as "the right to download and use the Composr CMS software free of charge, subject to the license agreement of Composr CMS" that this constitution wouldn't have the right to restrict, anyway. It seems like the last bullet point is the only one that matters for the constitution, and the rest could be condensed down to simply mention Composr's license.

Article II - Responsibilities
 

• "to contribute to the Composr ecosystem, if they can, in any way(s) they can, when using the software, to support its continued growth and longevity*;"
  • This reads like the license is dependent on contributing back, which of course isn't the case (as noted in the asterisk footnote), but calls into question why this is stated here and phrased this way. It seems more like receiving benefits/voting power/rewards in exchange for giving back is a right (subject to also following the rest of the constitution) more than contributing back is a responsibility.
• "to demonstrate empathy and kindness to all;"
  • I personally take issue with the use of the word "empathy" as a requirement when "empathy" is an emotion that cannot be objectively "demonstrated," as well as with the scope of "to all" when this document should, IMO, only apply when interacting in Composr spaces or in the context of being a Composr community member.
• "to give and gracefully receive constructive criticism and feedback;"
  • Nitpick, but I'd move a word and make this "to gracefully give and receive constructive criticism and feedback;"
• "to accept accountability for any and all mistakes made, to learn from them, to provide apologies and restitution to those impacted, and to come up with an actionable plan to avoid those same mistakes in the future;"
  • This seems like a wide brush. What type of "mistakes" is this line referring to? Coding mistakes, or community/constitution breaches? "Restitution" could be taken to imply some sort of warranty, which probably isn't desired.
• "to approach suggestions and feedback with the mindset of what is best for the overall community opposed to any given individual;"
  • "the overall community opposed to any given individual" should be "the overall community as opposed to any given individual" (emphasis mine).
• While I think the overall social nature of this constitution as you drafted it is fairer and more neutral than the Contributor Covenant itself, I'd personally prefer not to see the Contributor Covenant referenced directly, as it could imply the full text of the original document is also meant to apply. I understand if it needs to be kept in to some extent as a potential copyright issue, though (although I'm unclear on the Covenant's license and it appears they've breached their own licenseat least at some point in the past).
• "to report when someone is violating these responsibilities through the applicable "Report this" links or "Report" buttons, or through [email protected] when using a report link / button is not available."
  • There are certainly plenty of violations of the constitution that would not concern anyone's "equity." I'd prefer that email address be renamed to a more neutral word or phrase, like "[email protected]" or "[email protected]".

Finally, I'm also not a huge fan of how "the Bazaar model" is referenced in the constitution (and in your communications leading up to this point) as some sort of proper noun. I did a web search for "Bazaar software model", and it seems (as I thought) it's simply a metaphorical phrase from a popular book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. It's not actually defined by any authorities elsewhere. The book simply defines it as "the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public," as opposed to what we might call an "over-the-wall" approach. That's kind of the default assumption for open-source projects, and is evident enough in looking at Composr's development repositories that I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the constitution; but if it does, I'd rather see it actually spelled out than alluded to as if it's an official thing.

With all of that said, seeing as how I've identified both logical questions and a typo or two, I'm respectfully voting "Nay" on this one. I do want to be clear that I'll have no ill will if it passes. Like I already said, I honestly don't think it's going to matter that much.