> That is more like pure fantasy. What and who forms
> the General Assembly.
It depends, of course.
Take the recent Occupy the Board of Education action. There was a public process of deliberation leading to it. Parents, activists, etc. organized the protest ahead of time. They communicated, met, discussed, etc. Then they went and carried out the protest. These venues, this process, etc. is what you would call the "General Assembly" of the protest.
Now, if you're going to try more "militant" actions within the context of this protest, in ways that may impact the protest, then it is incumbent upon *you* to go there, in this venues and through this process, make *your* case and -- yes! -- abide by the agreements. Your actions have to fit the spirit if not the letter of the agreements. Else, you stay out of the way. Otherwise, you are effectively sabotaging or contributing to sabotage the protest.
You cannot then argue that: Hey, my actions actually wound up helping the protest, I kicked off the whole process, I know in my heart that I mean well and you're ignorant for not knowing that, I'm doing the dirty or dangerous work for you, I could do even crazier stuff, etc.
What is so complicated about my manner of speaking?