Hive account@modprobe, i agree with you, and Hive account@iang

• i'd add that it isn't really should there be a constitution or not, because "not" still implies how a group consitutes itself.
• any design: governance model x, y, z, or "no" design at all is still a design choice. and by making this choice, you are already deciding governance.
• org's, bodies, groups, systems, grow as a function of their design.
• what at first may seem like chains of governance, may in the future be the means by which the system is preserved.
• the question is what is it you wish to preserve, and if you hold it dearly, how do you ensure that you do that in a manner that befits the ideal.
• consider this as analogy (lifted from a recent quanta magazine article): https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-heat-kills-cells

proteins seem as though they are rigid machines only able to perform one specific task, but they morph in times of need, so much, that it seems they are dying - instead they are fortifying and recombining in new ways to help their system grow.

the devil is in the details as much as in the lack of details (e.g. constitution vs no constitution).