I think we're saying about the same thing.

I'm not specifying (and don't believe) that democracy is the best way to resolve a technical debate, but I am saying that once a path is decided, however decided, you pull in that direction or you need to be removed.

The people who aren't convinced can feel that the debate is still open, even while the majority is convinced that a decision was made two months ago.

I'm in the Netherlands, where hierarchy is a bit of a dirty word, and educated employees are all expected to be critical, independent, outspoken thinkers all working towards a common goal. That has many advantages, but the technical discussions about pretty small details can go on forever...

To me it indicates that you don't have a good facilitator in discussions. IMO one of the nicest things I've ever learned is the "silent thinking" bit. Basically: don't say anything, people write post-its, then people present that. This avoids usual influential people from speaking up early and everyone just focussing on one or two ideas. I've often been surprised what some people come up with.

If above is not enough to get an agreement, let the two people work it out on their own with a limit on how much time they can spend on it (and really limit this time). No need to have an entire team listen in or extend an existing meeting for ages (meetings should be brief).

Aside from that, sometimes you just need to do. So something like "it's not a perfect decision, but what you're saying is known and now it is time to do".

I'm from the Netherlands btw, though 50% of my colleagues are foreign.

People not knowing what decisions have been made, and which have yet to be made, is poor communication. The first thing you do after making a decision is communicate it unambiguously.

Indeed we are. Gp comment was a "me too" post.