I posted the initial invitation to the bulletin project in the following link : http://luxemburgism.forumr.net/general-f1/project-multilingual-bulletin-t61.htm
So far there is nobody in England, unfortunately. But anyone who feels should be part of this can join.
We set up a discussion list for this and we are preparing the website of the future journal.
I would suggest it should work along federalist lines with a delegate council that is empowered within a limited remit to make snap decisions on the organisation's behalf, and respond to rapidly unfolding situations without having to consult every member, but these delegates are regularly replaced, and can of course be recalled at any time. With the governing body of the org being an annual delegate conference.
How we have worked in the past (Democracia Comunista in Spain and Démocratie Communiste in France) was to take all decisions relating to the overall group together (simple majority) and whatever involved the local surrounding, we decided locally.
We came to the conclusion that we should reach some kind of minimum platform on which we all agree (as of today we got two texts on this : For Democratic Communism and What is Communist Democracy (Luxemburgist). These texts can be changed and discussed any time even by new members.
This is even more so if the bulletin project is completely set up.
Based on this "plateform" all views can be held, discussed... We know that we don't have final anwsers, we hafve a heritage (Marxism and LuxemburgisM) that needs to be looked at critically by analysing History and complete this with other currents (autonomism, anarchism, left communism...) and our studies, researches...
Every member is free to work in other organizations : unions, parties or whatever s/he thinks is the best option as long as we agree on the basis.
So there is a mix of centralism (we vote all together and apply decisions, even though anyone can publicly say s/he disagrees with the majority) and federalism (members can organize/act outside of the groups as s/he thinks is best).
But this works fine for a tiny group. For a larger one, I agree there should be delegates, committees, etc. The point is to have a constant control on mandated people and ensure democracy and make sure no "leader" appears. Because it would be the end of the group.