Working mode for specs we're shifting to the CR snapshot model.

[mikewest]

As we shift stable specifications like CSP, SRI, etc. to a "living" CR snapshot model, we'll likely want to be more clear about the requirements for landing changes. WHATWG's model seems like an appealing example to learn from https://whatwg.org/working-mode, and @mozfreddyb has already adopted something along those lines for new issues and PRs against SRI (see pull_request_template.md and the issue templates in that repo).

I think it would be ideal to agree on a set of requirements as a group for specifications at this stage, and to ensure we have consistent representation of those requirements in the relevant repos.

@simoneonofri, @dveditz: Are there other examples within W3C we ought to be looking towards?

[simoneonofri]

hi @mikewest,

We are discussing this with @tidoust, and there will be an addition to the guidebook.

Manwhile, some points:

• There’s no one-size-fits-all choice; it depends on the people involved
• Both models have trade‑offs; neither is inherently better
• The working group’s workflow will be affected by the model chosen
• One point is to consider where and how the technology will be shipped/used:
  • Interchange standards that need a clear “this is the standard” signal (e.g., TTML) → typically suit the Recommendation model.

• Browser‑targeted tech if it is expected to evolve with ongoing features (e.g., WebGPU) → can fit the CR Snapshot model.
  • Counterexample: WebAssembly is similar to WebGPU in being browser‑targeted and evolving, yet it uses the Recommendation model without known issues for the group (so far).

We can think on deployment context and group dynamics rather than assuming one model is superior.

[tidoust]

We are discussing this with @tidoust, and there will be an addition to the guidebook.

See w3c/guide#366 for the corresponding pull request. The page describes considerations that groups should have in mind.