I doubt we may say there is much of "common approved" in Socionics. There are sources wich someones find more authoritative or just like more. I've offered an example for 1st rank sources: 1) published books as they may be officially used for citation and will be kept in libraries, 2) Lytov's site as it was 1st main international source about Socionics in 2000s, 3) Bukalov's site as it's official organisation wich is good known outside of ex-USSR (maybe there are other similar in ex-USSR also).
Other known English Socionics site - by Ganin emigrant, but his authority is too doubtful to represent something. While on wiki anyone may write anything and sometimes it just represents opinion of wiki's admin with doubtful personal authority. Similar situation with forums. These sources are significantly worse in my taste.
You asked about authoritative source. I've offered you several. I don't know about discussions with near authoritative status or more objective interest.
More to say, there is no subject in typology (person, group, etc) to give something "common approved" (besides Jung and partly Augustinavichiute). So if there were such discussions, no one cares seriously what those people liked to use as terms. There are popular sources about typology and people may copy them, or copy other ones, or create own terms' translations.
Lytov has close education. In 2000s emigrated to Canada so is good in both languages. He has
blog.