It is unclear to me and others how we determine 'official' site policy.
We have a lot of questions and answers surrounding our site policy here on meta. Some have a lot of views, some have a lot of votes.
But then we also see on main that what looks like a violation of the advice given in the help-centre. Violations that are tolerated or accepted. And posts on main or voting, commenting behaviour from users that are not knowing, ignoring or indeed plainly violating what looks on meta like 'being stated site policy'.
One might argue that what we see on main is emergent group consensus.
But that is not just an advantage in terms of leeway and flexibility.
It is too indirect and open to interpretation. It makes the rules implicit, invisible and in effect un-understandable for all users, but especially new ones.
How do we determine what our site policy is? How do we propose changes and accept or reject them? That is: How do we reach a consensus? And how do we make that consensus visible and its implications understandable for users?
The related question How is consensus determined on Meta sites? on network wide Meta:SE.