Code4rena's consensus-building processes are not entirely managed within the channels where our community gathers (e.g. Discord, or our org repo in Github), because at least one key set of stakeholders -- the projects that sponsor C4 competitions -- are far less active in those channels.
It's critical that the needs and goals of projects paying for services are a central consideration in all decisions affecting C4 rules and processes, as well as the overall sustainability of the process, second order effects, and the impacts on C4 culture and overall Web3 ecosystem.
If there is an emerging consensus among wardens about some problem (which may or may not be accompanied by specific proposed solutions), the community can build and push toward it, and wardens may ask individual judges to weigh in and give input. The ideal venue for this is Code4rena's org repo.
Staff will not jump in and arbitrate these discussions, but once differing opinions have been aired, staff can point more judges toward the discussion and ask for pointed input.
If after a reasonable amount of time passes (usually in the order of weeks), an issue recurs and remains unresolved beyond that to the point of frustration, then it can be useful for a community advocate familiar with the history involved to restate the specific question and problem (as well as the proposed solution) and re-surface that to staff.
On a periodic basis, we endeavour to resolve all open questions, either through staff decisions or via the Code4rena Supreme Court.