I found this super interesting, so I wanted to single it out while I read the rest of your information. You're being critical, but you're engaging the issues and I respect that as an individual. I agree that you cannot regulate users' behaviour, nor should you want to, however, I think it's possible and necessary to regulate the behaviour of those charged with the stewardship of the project (the people that act as custodians). A project constitution acts as this check on the behaviour of those who work on the project.

Imagine this scenario: You have a system open to anyone where it doesn't matter who was there first. Your value in that community is derived from the contributions you make (i.e., the work you do, or the issues you engage with the view to explore new solutions). Such behaviour is the closest thing to derive "status" in a meritocratic system like that. Status is then regulated by a constitution, so that behaviour by those who rise up in the community stay within a framework so that those who get involved know what to expect from the project, and can get an indication of what behaviour will look like from custodians in the future. If you build into that framework inclusivity, anyone can enter that system and progress in it.

The purpose of a constitution is therefore not to regulate the behaviour of users, but the behaviour of those users who contribute at a level that affords them greater responsibility in that system. Every user can then judge for themselves the behaviour of the latter custodian users within the context of a framework and decide whether the two are congruent.