It suggests the use of a prefix like cwg- for closed working groups or applying a closed label on discussions that are not open to all members. This proposal stems from an understanding of the importance of protecting the development of nascent ideas within closed groups from premature or negative external feedback. However, it emphasizes the necessity of clearly marking such discussions as closed to prevent any misconceptions among the wider community or even within the group that a consensus has been reached without adequate debate.

Furthermore, the conversation highlights a concern regarding the accessibility and openness of discussions, particularly in reference to silent payments. The requirement to join a group via the wg page to participate in discussions, as opposed to simply replying or using a tag system like in other working groups, is questioned. This requirement seems at odds with the principle of open discussions, suggesting a need for greater clarity around which discussions are intended to be open and how they are distinguished from those that are closed. This distinction is crucial for maintaining transparency and inclusivity in collaborative environments.