Here actually 3 things, so…
Are bylaws bureaucratic?
When I look at the linked example bylaws, they seem to be very “bureaucratic”  or a bit laborious . On the other hand, it fits what the word translates to in German. It feels like actual laws or algorithms to solve social problems. If that is correct, is it what we need?
Examples for lightweight structuring formats:
(if they are still considered bylaws, I don’t know)
- Statement of: Mission , Values, Strategies,
- including illustrations/scenarios to make them graspable. 
- No-Goals, No-Values, No-Strategies…
- Might help to get coherence. Also might help to inhibit intransparent power-structures  in open source projects (e.g. local or historical knowledge only accessible to long term members)
- Ground Rules for communication or decision making.
- I try to use “State this before meetings: Interest (…which I have)/Information (…I have or need)/Inferences (I make, which I need to check with others)”
An example (?)
I recently wrote some infos for contributing to my needfinding book, which might be an example for a very simple “structuredness”
 Which I don’t mean as a bad thing. B. gets a lot done.
 Which I mean as a thing we might want to avoid.
 …implicit Strategies (the ones never stated) are a kind of pet topic of mine… so if there is specific interest, ping me
 Again, “power” itself is not bad, but there can easily be hidden, non-fun ways it is yielded.