I recently handled a paper where the peer review process ended with two minor revision reviews and two reject reviews. The disagreement was pretty fundamental - the two reviewers recommending rejection think the authors should do X, but the authors disagree, and it's extremely unlikely they are going to agree with each other.
The handling editor decided to accept the paper. Journal policy in this situation (where there is at least one outstanding 'reject' review) is to involve another member of the editorial board. The new editor is asked for an opinion & an explanation of that opinion, which is shown to the original editor to see if the two editors can come to a consensus.
Here's my question: Journal policy is also to not reveal the names of the two editors to each other. The stated reason is to maintain the anonymity of peer review, thereby allowing the editors to speak freely without fear of retribution from the other editor. Is this normal? I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with it, but intuitively it still seems rather weird.