What I'm saying is that people on executive SHOULD be free to oppose a decision at executive AND at council without being labeled, stigmatized and be put thru the additional hoop of an 'executive solidarity' motion.
The would be more democratic
I don't see how it being "acceptable" to not inform one's colleagues that one intends to continue to oppose a position that the majority has endorsed by a moajority in which one took part and then going on to so oppose is more "democratic". At ScottP noted above, all that is expected is to be up front about one's intent to continue opposing a motion that the majority has adopted. "Executive solidarity", as you title it, would require you to support the opinion that you had opposed. That would be undemocratic and is not what the expectation is.
Being "put through the additional hoop", as you phrase it, is simply being up front about one's intentions to continue to oppose a decision that the majority has not endorsed. If you feel "stigmatized" by doing so, let me suggest the stigma would (and should) be stronger on anyone who had not told her/his colleagues of an intent to oppose a motion adopted after debate and then "sandbagged" those colleagues by speaking in opposition without warning.
How on earth is setting up a system in which people can keep their intent hidden for a longer period of time more "democratic"? Though I usually don't vote straight slate at convention, I highly doubt I would support anyone advocating such an approach based on what I have read in this discussion.