I don't think there is a valid way to define "fundamental BC breaks" or "mere BC breaks", all votes will always be a reasonable vote as much as there are people to vote on it.
Whats special or different about BC break that would require slim margin or consensus votes on where this is dealing with people from various continent, language and ethnic? Would that imply you don't want any BC breaks at all? I think if there's any valid arguments against or for any RFCs or votes, the internals at that time can determine how best to make the voting work. I don't see any good or valid reason to make a kind of change requiring a special kind of vote that looks like it was intended to never pass, why 10 to 1? Does that mean everyone must agree to some kind of change and because there's 3 people not agreeing, such votes must be counted invalid? I think this isn't a good decision IMO. Majority should always be majority regardless of who seems to be in the minority. Why don't some people like being in the minority group, which whenever such happens they would look for a way to gather public minorities to argue their cause or probably edit RFCs to notify newer voters about who is disagreeing?
