# Project categories?

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/project-categories/162>\
**Category:** Meta\
**Created:** [November 4, 2023, 11:20am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/project-categories/162 "2023-11-04T11:20:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![harding](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/harding/32/925_2.png) [@harding](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/harding)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2024, 2:53am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/project-categories/162/10 "2024-05-28T02:53:33Z")

</div>

> [@ajtowns](#):
>
> It varies per group

Is there any way groups with different posting policies could be distinguished from each other? Maybe `cwg-` for closed working groups ? Alternatively a label like `closed` on any non-open discussions

I understand the benefits of closed working groups for developing ideas that aren’t ready for public criticism yet, especially unthoughtful criticism from entrenched opposition—but I think it’s important to label any closed discussion as such. I don’t want to see a discussion among experts and come to a mistaken belief that it represents a consensus opinion when critics didn’t have an opportunity to reply.

Additionally, I think it’s advantageous to members of a closed group to see that their posts are still protected from inline criticism from outside the group. Otherwise I worry they too may come to a mistaken belief that they have discussed an idea sufficiently enough that it represents a consensus opinion.

> [@ajtowns](#):
>
> all you have to do is go to the [wg page](https://delvingbitcoin.org/g/wg-silent-payments) and click join,

If discussion of silent payments is meant to be open, why do I need to join rather than just reply like in #wg-blockrelay or have it just be a tag like for #wg-cluster-mempool ?

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/project-categories/162)._