Consensus if you can get it of course, but direct small-group debates and discussions with open votes if you can't, including the absolute freedom to go it alone if you can't live with the direction the group is going. This presumes that there will be no rancor against those who separate, and maybe that can be called naive but as an anarchist I have to respect your right to pursue your own vision even if I'm disappointed or offended that it doesn't go along with mine. Being offended would be my problem, not yours, as long as you're not interfering with me or harming the innocent. If I can't convince you I have to let you take your own path (because I insist on the right to do that myself), or dominate and control you, which is out.
One factor that would help make this work is smaller groups, dealing with issues most or all of the group members face. (Presumption of the respectability of the other group members and their interests would also be important ingredients, and I think an anarchist shouldn't figure such a thing to be automatically unrealistic or naive.) It's one reason why large political units have to rely on electioneering and representative/republican structures, and therefore majority coercion of minority factions or minority acceptance that they have to go along with what they don't want by prior agreement with "the system" as it is set up. It's physically impossible to converse and reason with all the people in such a sprawling "community", which is arguably not a real community at all but a bounded administrative subdivision only. So we hire people to speak for us in a rule-making assembly, which they cannot because the "community" is too big to be internally uniform. Outgrouping and coercion become inevitable.
Even in a direct-participation structure, you can already see the potential for problems if a "live and let live" value isn't upheld.
Libertaro
