So now staff is quickly rallying to defend the boss by calling it "consensus" when it might also be politely called extreme deference?  Consensus means the position is agreed by everyone, but the position in this article is very one-sided, so hardly a fair definition of consensus.
I stand by my call that the individual votes of the CB Editorial Board be revealed by roll call, otherwise, this forced consensus is meaningless.  If you are actually trying to convince everyone that eight people at CB agree on one thing that almost everyone else disagrees with here, then the value of the CB position is almost worthless or biased at the wholesale level at best.  And "comfortable with the stance" could mean "not worth risking my job over" so my guess is after all the honest consensus talk, the final vote on each person's position towards that consensus is not voted on in secret, is it, and if not, why not?  What would be wrong with frankly admitting the vote was 5 to 3 and not unanimous?