This is in the context of groups. Like, “group consent” or “group consensus”.
Personally, I define consent as “I do not object”. (Not to be confused with enthusiastic consent.) So a vote that results in group consent would contain of people who either vote yes, abstain from the vote, or are missing from the vote. It cannot contain any “no” votes.
This is possible in communities but gets harder as it becomes more like a space. Eventually, irreconcilable objections lead to the fragmentation of the group, which naturally keeps it small. That's if no one wants to be ruled.
Consent is not the end all be all, especially in spaces. I do not need the consent of others in the space to be gay, to dress a certain way, to remember things that I see, or to tell others the things that I remember. Yes, “I do not consent to see gay people in public” is a real and serious argument, which is why I don't see “I do not consent” as a conversation-ender in spaces. (Note: this does not apply to sex; remember that this paragraph only applies to spaces, and sex is more of a community thing, specifically a community of usually 2 people).
However, in communities, if others object (i.e. don't consent) to something you're doing, and you object back, that's “grounds” for the fragmentation of the group. Which is why tolerance is important.
Consensus, then, is that everyone must vote yes. Harder to do, given that simply tolerating a group decision is not enough; you have to want it too.