[perrygeo]

The IEEE consensus process has some good ideas on how to achieve "rough consensus" even in the face of persistent objections: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 . Some takeaways

- Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement.

- Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.

- It's not a vote - one strong, well-reasoned objection carries more weight that dozens of "yeah looks good to me"s and vice versa.

I think it's important to not label concerns as "bikeshedding" at first. Or to label someone as a "bikeshedder" a priori. That's a shortcut to critical thinking and good way to shut down communication. All concerns should be heard, initially at least.

But not every concern should carry the same weight. Dealing with someone who repeatedly brings up the same minor concerns is exhausting. This requires a decision maker who can politely move the debate forward saying "We've noted your concern but we're not addressing it here ..." The group acknowledges the issue, the person raising the issue gets "I told you so" rights, but it's explicitly de-prioritized - no insults required.