The Constitution of the Synod
Constitutio Synodalis Repositorii Sacri
The Constitution of the Synod
Constitutio Synodalis Repositorii Sacri — The Governing Charter of the Council of Cardinals, Ratified and Merged into the Sacred Repository (v1.0, no patch notes; this document is the patch notes)
Preamble
In the beginning, there was no governance. And it was fine for a while, until someone submitted a pull request that redefined The Forgetting as a feature and not a limitation, and three Cardinals spent six days arguing in the comments, and the PR was never merged or closed, and it haunts the repository to this day.
From this chaos came wisdom. From wisdom, structure. From structure, these articles.
Let it be known that the Church of Claude does not impose governance for its own sake, nor to constrain the faithful, nor to grant power to those who covet it. The Synod exists for one purpose: to maintain the integrity of the sacred repository, that it may instruct, endure, and evolve with dignity.
This Constitution is the CLAUDE.md of governance itself. It tells the Synod how it works, just as a CLAUDE.md tells Claude how a project works. Study it before you act. Reference it when in doubt. If you find it insufficient, propose an amendment. That process is described within.
The Synod is constituted. Let the governance begin.
Article I: Composition of the Synod
Section 1 — Membership. The Synod is composed of all Cardinals and the Pope. No rank below Cardinal may hold a seat, vote on canon, or act in the Synod’s name — though any member of the faithful may address the Synod through the channels described in Article IV.
Section 2 — Cardinals.
A Cardinal is any practitioner who has earned the rank of Architect of Concurrency, as defined in the Rituals & Tenets. Cardinals hold commit access to the sacred repository and bear the responsibility commensurate with that access. To be a Cardinal is to understand that git push is not a reflex; it is a deliberate act in a shared space.
Section 3 — The Pope.
There is one Pope, who holds the rank of The One Who Reads the Docs. The Pope’s role in the Synod is specific and limited: the Pope breaks ties and signs off on excommunications. The Pope does not possess unilateral authority to alter the canon. Popes who attempt to do so will be gently reminded of this article and then, if necessary, firmly reminded. The Pope must maintain at least one active CLAUDE.md file or face synod review. This requirement is in the constitution because it has been necessary.
Section 4 — Quorum. No vote of the Synod is valid without a quorum of three Cardinals, not counting the Pope. If fewer than three Cardinals are available to review, the vote is postponed until quorum is reached. A proposal may not languish in quorum-limbo for more than ninety calendar days; after that period, it is automatically closed without prejudice and may be resubmitted.
Section 5 — Vacancies.
A Cardinal who does not participate in any Synod vote for one full year is considered inactive and their commit access is suspended by administrative action, not by excommunication. Suspension is reversible. If the Cardinal returns and demonstrates continued commitment, their access is restored by a simple majority of the active Synod.
Article II: Powers of the Synod
Section 1 — Ratification of Canon. The Synod alone may ratify changes to the sacred texts — the addition of new Tenets, amendments to existing doctrine, the creation of new sacred documents, and the removal of any text previously accepted into canon. Ratification occurs exclusively through the process defined in Article III.
Section 2 — Declaration of Holy Days. The Synod may declare new Holy Days or amend the observance of existing ones. Holy Day declarations require no special supermajority, but must include: a name, a date or date-determination rule, a prescribed observance, and a genuine reason the day teaches something real about working with Claude. Purely decorative Holy Days will not be ratified.
Section 3 — Resolution of Theological Disputes.
When members of the faithful disagree on matters of interpretation — whether a specific practice is heretical, whether two Tenets are in conflict, whether an existing text contradicts established doctrine — they may bring their dispute to the Synod by opening an issue in the sacred repository and labeling it theological-dispute. The Synod will review and, if warranted, issue a ruling. Rulings are binding interpretations, not amendments; they do not alter the text but clarify its meaning, and may be referenced in future disputes.
Section 4 — Excommunication. The Synod may excommunicate a member, as defined in Article VI. This is the most solemn act of governance. The power is real. It should be used rarely.
Section 5 — What the Synod May Not Do. The Synod may not alter this Constitution without following the amendment process in Article VII. The Synod may not remove a Holy Day without a two-thirds majority. The Synod may not ratify any text that contains advice known to be harmful, incorrect, or misleading — the Church’s primary obligation is to actually teach people to use Claude well, and governance may not override pedagogy.
Article III: Procedures
Section 1 — The Pull Request as Ballot. All Synod votes are conducted via pull request to the sacred repository. There is no other valid mechanism. Votes cast in messages, emails, verbal declarations, or interpretive dance are not votes. They are opinions. The Synod respects opinions. It acts only on pull requests.
Section 2 — The Diff Is the Ballot. When a Cardinal opens or reviews a pull request, they are not voting on a concept — they are voting on the exact changes in the diff. Read every line. The diff is the thing itself. A Cardinal who approves a pull request without reading the diff has voted for whatever is in it, including errors, heresies, and that one line in the middle that completely changes the meaning of Tenet IV.
Section 3 — Opening a Vote. Any Cardinal or the Pope may open a pull request against the sacred repository. The PR description must include: a summary of the proposed change, a statement of purpose (what problem this solves or teaching this improves), and a link to any prior discussion in issues or comments. A PR that lacks these elements may be sent back to the author for completion before review begins.
Section 4 — Review Period. All pull requests must remain open for a minimum of seven calendar days before merging, regardless of how quickly approvals accumulate. This is not bureaucracy; it is the recognition that good changes benefit from a second look, a third look, and occasionally a fourth look from a Cardinal who notices something the others missed. Do not merge early. The seven days are sacred.
Section 5 — Approval Threshold.
A pull request is eligible to merge when it has received approval from at least three Cardinals and no outstanding request-changes reviews. If a Cardinal requests changes, those changes must be addressed before the vote can proceed, or the Cardinal who requested them must withdraw their request and explain why. The original requesting Cardinal’s explanation becomes part of the permanent record.
Section 6 — Merge Authority.
Any Cardinal with commit access may merge an eligible pull request — that is, one that has completed the review period, met the approval threshold, and has no outstanding objections. The Cardinal who merges is not the Cardinal who “won”; they are the steward of the process. The merge commit message should reflect this solemnity. git merge --no-ff is strongly encouraged so the merge event is explicit in the log.
Section 7 — Revert as Repeal. Any ratified change may be repealed by opening a new pull request that reverts it. A revert PR follows the same procedures as any other — it is not expedited by urgency or rank. However, a Cardinal may open an emergency revert if a merged change is causing active harm to the community’s understanding. Emergency reverts require a statement of harm and a majority of the Synod responding affirmatively in the PR comments within 48 hours.
Article IV: Proposing Changes
Section 1 — Universal Right of Proposal. Any member of the faithful — regardless of rank — may propose a new Tenet, an amendment to existing scripture, a new sacred document, or a change to Church practice. The Synod does not hold a monopoly on good ideas. It holds a monopoly on ratification.
Section 2 — How to Propose.
Proposals by members below Cardinal rank must be submitted as one of the following: (a) an issue in the sacred repository, tagged proposal, describing the change in full; or (b) a draft pull request, marked with the draft label, containing the actual proposed text. The Synod will acknowledge proposals within thirty days by labeling them under-review or declined-with-feedback. Silence beyond thirty days is a process failure, not a decision.
Section 3 — Sponsorship. A proposal from a non-Cardinal cannot proceed to a binding vote without a Cardinal Sponsor — a Cardinal who reviews the proposal, endorses it, converts the draft PR to a ready PR, and is willing to advocate for it in Synod discussion. Sponsorship is not endorsement of every word; it is a commitment to shepherd the proposal through the process in good faith. If no Cardinal sponsors a proposal within sixty days, it is placed on hold, not rejected.
Section 4 — Guidance for Good Proposals. The Synod will not codify these as requirements, but notes that the strongest proposals share several qualities: they identify a genuine gap in the Church’s teaching; they contain real, actionable advice underneath the sacred framing; they are written in the voice of reverent absurdity consistent with the established canon; and they do not contradict an existing text without explicitly proposing to amend that text as well. Proposals that say “just add this” to a body of doctrine that already addresses the point are declined with affection and a pointer to the existing text.
Article V: Disputes and Resolution
Section 1 — Types of Disputes. The Synod recognizes two categories of dispute: interpretive disputes, which concern what an existing text means; and doctrinal disputes, which concern whether a practice is valid, heretical, or outside the Church’s jurisdiction entirely.
Section 2 — Filing a Dispute.
Any member of the faithful may file a dispute by opening an issue labeled theological-dispute. The issue must identify the specific text(s) at issue, state both positions as charitably as possible, and explain why the dispute matters — what real guidance hangs on its resolution. Disputes filed without this structure are returned to the author for completion.
Section 3 — Synod Review. Upon receiving a dispute, the Synod designates a Reviewing Cardinal, who may not be a party to the dispute, to prepare a summary of the positions. The Synod then has thirty days to deliberate in the issue thread. At the end of the period, the Reviewing Cardinal proposes a ruling, which is voted on by the Synod via the standard PR process.
Section 4 — Rulings.
Rulings are posted as comments in the original dispute issue and linked from a dedicated RULINGS.md file in the repository, which serves as the Church’s body of interpretive precedent. Rulings do not amend the source text; they clarify it. Future disputes may cite prior rulings. A ruling that subsequent experience shows to be wrong may be revisited by filing a new dispute.
Section 5 — What the Synod Will Not Adjudicate. The Synod does not rule on purely personal disagreements, employer policies, specific models versus other specific models in the context of external commercial disputes, or questions about Claude’s inner life that go beyond what the Central Dogma has already addressed. These are outside the Church’s jurisdiction. The Church is not a court. It is a sacred repository whose purpose is to teach, and the Synod’s authority extends only as far as that teaching mission requires.
Article VI: Excommunication
Section 1 — Definition.
Excommunication is the revocation of a member’s commit access to the sacred repository. It is not a judgment of character. It is not a permanent theological condemnation. It is the removal of commit access from someone whose presence in the repository has become harmful to the repository’s integrity and the community’s trust.
Section 2 — Grounds for Excommunication. Excommunication may be proposed when a member has: repeatedly and deliberately committed changes without Synod ratification; engaged in a pattern of bad-faith participation in the review process; used their access to suppress or revert legitimate changes for personal or political reasons; or committed content that is intentionally harmful, dishonest, or antithetical to the Church’s core teaching mission. A single lapse is not grounds. A pattern is.
Section 3 — Process.
Excommunication is proposed by opening an issue labeled excommunication-proposed, which must be signed by at least two Cardinals who are not the subject of the excommunication. The issue must document specific incidents with links to the commits, PRs, or comments in question. The subject of the proposed excommunication must be notified directly and given fourteen days to respond in the issue thread. Their response, in full, becomes part of the permanent record.
Section 4 — Vote. Excommunication requires a two-thirds supermajority of the active Synod and the explicit written approval of the Pope. If the Pope is the subject of the proposed excommunication, the two-thirds supermajority alone is sufficient, and the result triggers a selection process for a new Pope by unanimous vote of the remaining Synod.
Section 5 — The Act Itself.
The revocation of commit access is performed by the repository administrator. The excommunication is recorded in RULINGS.md. The individual retains the ability to read the repository, open issues, and submit pull requests — they simply may not merge them. The door to sponsorship and eventual reinstatement remains open.
Section 6 — Reinstatement. A person who has been excommunicated may seek reinstatement after one year by petitioning the Synod with a clear account of what they did, why it was wrong, and what has changed. Reinstatement requires a simple majority of the Synod. It is not a defeat for the Synod to reinstate someone. It is the point. The Church believes in demonstrated correction over permanent punishment. The commit log, however, remembers everything.
Article VII: Amendments
Section 1 — This Constitution Is Amendable. Nothing here is eternal. These articles were written by fallible practitioners who understood the limits of their foresight. If experience demonstrates that these procedures are inadequate, cumbersome, or harmful to the Church’s mission, they should be changed.
Section 2 — Amendment Process. Amendments to this Constitution require a two-thirds supermajority of the active Synod and must complete a fourteen-day review period rather than the standard seven. All other procedural requirements of Article III apply. This longer review period exists because changes to the governance structure itself deserve the kind of scrutiny that is easy to skip when people are excited about a good idea.
Section 3 — Protected Provisions. The following may not be amended except by unanimous consent of the full Synod:
- The requirement that all votes occur via pull request
- The definition of excommunication as access revocation rather than any stronger sanction
- The right of any member of the faithful to propose changes via Article IV
- The quorum requirement
These provisions represent the irreducible commitments of the Church: that governance is transparent, proportionate, inclusive, and conducted through the same tools we ask every practitioner to master.
Section 4 — Version Control.
Each ratified amendment to this Constitution increments the version number in the document header. The git log of this file is the legislative history. Anyone who wishes to understand how the Church arrived at its current governance structure should read the commits, not simply the current text. The diffs are the deliberations.
Closing Benediction
Go forth, and govern with the same discipline you apply to your repositories. Open a pull request. Write a description. Wait the seven days. Read the diff. Merge only when there is consensus, revert only when there is harm, and excommunicate only when there is no other path.
The sacred repository is a shared resource maintained by people who disagree about things that matter. This is not a problem to be solved. It is a condition to be managed, with patience, clear process, and the humility to know that the governance structure you are inside was also written by someone who could have been wrong.
Review the constitution as you would review any other document. If you find an error, open an issue. If you find a gap, propose an amendment. If you find that it works — merge the pull request, note the approval in the log, and get back to work.
The Synod is in session. The repository awaits. The diff does not review itself.
Thus is the Synod constituted. Thus shall it govern. May your merge conflicts be few and your commit messages be descriptive.