In order for a new organization to even function, it has to alienate impractical people and disruptors from the start, by rejecting impractical methods and keeping out disruptors (by getting security to bar them at the front gate, or by doing it yourself). In fact I think this is so critical that leaders and administrators should feel the responsibility to do it without needing democratic approval, because once again, without these measures, a new organization will not even be able to function.
(Disruptors can mean different things but what I have in mind right now are people whose entire political method is to make denunciations and high-horse differentiations…of course it can also be more obvious, like people who start shouting over everyone else at a meeting and do not stop, or people who are so ridiculous or hostile that they are repellent to most newcomers who then avoid the group.)
Also, from the start, you have to alienate the people who disagreed with the impractical people and disliked the disruptors, but still believe that the idealists deserved a compromise and the disruptors should have been tolerated.
So from the start you already create a bad taste with (1) impractical people (2) disruptors (3) middle-ground fallacy people who give too much credit to the first two, and want to treat them with kid gloves.
To be clear, only disruptors should be barred from the start. Impractical people should merely have their proposals debated against and defeated democratically. However, if you fail to do this, the new organization will quickly become completely paralyzed and collapse, triggering demoralization and cynicism among anyone involved. So you have a responsibility to make these arguments and make them hard.
Depending on the venue, for example if you cannot yet meet in person, democratic debate is not really democratic but is really more like a spat between a few people in one-at-a-time communications that cannot possibly represent a group decision. In this case, the leaders should just make the decision that is practical, which actually allows the organization to even exist, and if anyone really is so horrified by this, then they are completely free to independently pursue the group’s goals by their own methods if they must.
What you realize is that #3 is actually a softer subcategory of #1, and if impractical people are too insistent they effectively become disruptors, by leaning too hard on some high-horse principle instead of cutting through the radical fads to the red meat that will actually attract the working majority.