I didn't really understand that, sorry. Can you reword that example? And possibly spell-check it? Not being sarky, I just want clarification...
Consensus/Majorative/Other forms of Democracy within A-C
RE-EDIT
Ok, say a food distro workers collective have 3 issues in a day.
what shifts have to be covered and who wants to
the fact that the repairs to the car park ground have to be done at night, and that the sound is going to wake up everyone in the next street [so they call a meeting with the community essembly]
and on top of that they're having a mobile convo with a worker of theirs who's miles away delibering the goods to a Soup Kitchen Collective [SKC].
The reason of the call being the kitchen is in a remote area, and the soup kitchen people's van broke down and they would very much like to utilise the distro van to get their gear back to SKC HQ.
These are 3 entirely different situations that a worker would face, what i'm asking is would it be safe and sound to use one type of democracy over another for all 3? [ie concensus/majorative/concensus minus 10%]
and would like to hear on real life experiences people have had within different situations and what they like/hate about them.
Generally, I'd favour attempting to reach a consensus, but voting if it looks like a consensus is not going to be reached. Obviously finding a solution that makes everybody happy is the ideal, but sometimes that's just not possible, in which case you can either argue about it until the people who disagree with you just get sick of arguing and pretend to agree or take a vote.
Obviously, you're going to need to draw up different policies and decision making processes for different situations, but I'd say that the way I've laid out is a good general model.
Its not my revolution if I have to eat from a 'soup kitchen'. Voting will sort most things, people can also be delegated with the power to make decisions though, its not like we're looking for a society where we cant function because every idiotic decision has to have concensus reached.
I think how long a decision takes to be made is a pretty important point too. Most consensus based meetings that are over a half a dozen people get exponentially longer. I've seen consensus meetings around major portests involving hundreds of people go on for days with everyone in the end just going off and doing what they wanted anyways because the compromise that was reached was watered down to the point of meaninglessness.
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I've seen consensus meetings around major protests involving hundreds of people go on for days with everyone in the end just going off and doing what they wanted anyways because the compromise that was reached was watered down to the point of meaninglessness.
We must have been at the same meeting! 
Is Emma Goldman's stinging attack on majority decision-making and action in her "Minorities versus Majorities" (http://www.panarchy.org/goldman/majorities.html) of any relevance to this debate? This was the basis of her view that "anarchism" would be brought about by the action of a minority of intellectuals, not the majority of workers. If she disliked majority decision-making, I'm sure she'd have hated consensus decision-making. Personally I never understood why she's taken so seriously in some circles.
What situations and organisations would constitute richeous use of say consenus, as apose to majorative democracy, and vice versa?
Which hae you found work better say on: Covert Direct Action / Protests / Discussions within worker groups / Fests etc?
Do you think that for example in an Anarcho-communist state, a collective that say delivers food from supplier to soup kitchen have the same forms of democracy at Head Office planning, than say when one of their food curriers they meet with an unexpected dilemma that needs a meeting with say the soup kitchen commune?
[alter any given situation for your own amusement]