Congratulations on your new bike collective!
It's encouraging to see groups using other than traditional hierarchical structures. I have found that they have substantial benefits, especially for mission driven organizations.
From a legal perspective, if you are USA based, you should look into forming a "non profit domestic corporation" in the state you operate. That status will allow the organization to apply for IRS 501(c)3 status, which allows for tax deductible donations and qualifies the entity for assistance from other non-profit and government entities.Typically, these organizations are operated by an "Executive Director" but could be directed by a committee or other structure. You will need to specify the structure in your bylaws which are part of your 501(c)3 application. So, playing around with structure for a bit, while starting out and building a core group, skills and resources. If the group needs to accept donations or become eligible for assistance, a different, allied 501(c)3 can act as a "fiscal sponsor" for the group, accepting and disbursing funds.
Regarding the process, I have been an active member in co-ops and collectives, participating in a variety of decision making processes from majoritarian to consensus. Simple majoritarian is expedient but, especially where majorities are slim, often leads to division and resentment. Consensus can take a long time, but doesn't have to and can be "safety valved" with super-majoritarian processes. Most decisions are better made the way a group of friends decides what restaurant they should go out to eat at. I would echo what Cyclista said with a little twist: organizations go through an arc and those that start it are often the types of people that start up lots of (good) things. Once established, an organization usually needs refinement, attention to detail and has greater administrative activities. Often this arc involves different types of people with different levels of commitment (hours) and experience. Those differences (and changes in group composition) can make strict consensus time consuming and limit opportunities.
The Dynamic Governance model seems rather complex for an org starting out, but I have found two of those ideas very helpful: 1. Don't use a volunteer process to assign tasks/responsibilities; 2. Develop structures that elevate all voices. A volunteer process ends up favoring the loudest and most passionate voice, which reinforces many different power/privilege imbalances in our society. A nomination process, random method or assignment can result in a more equitable distribution of authority and work. The referenced "go rounds" to ensure all voices are heard is a great way to undermine the power structures inherent in the volunteering of ideas. Rotating meeting facilitation, varying meeting style, polling, small group breakouts and socratic or outside facilitation are some other methods to elevate all voices.
Some bicycle collectives pay staff, with some in the USA paying top level full time staff $50+K and benefits. One benchmark to consider is "what do local bike shops pay mechanics?" In my experience, bicycle collectives that get to a level where they can pay near local market rates for mechanics (along with benefits and added flexibility) are able to maintain a stable core group of staff.
Thanks for your good work!