[template] Include a pointer to deadline-driven publication methodology

[nigelmegitt]

Add a section or pointer to the WG's primary intended working style, for example suggested alternatives:

• WG intends to work on drafts, get to a review stage, do a big review, then publish/request transition of next stage of maturity when all the pieces are in place.
• WG intends to review all changes as pull requests, reviewing incrementally, and publish/request transition of next stage of maturity on a deadline-driven basis. Incomplete functionality or unresolved issues will be default be deferred to a later edition/module/level etc.

[svgeesus]

I like the idea but would like to see wider input from chairs and team contacts.

[nigelmegitt]

@svgeesus happy to have more data. So far we have:

Chairs: +2 -0
Team contacts: +1 -0

(I'm taking @chaals 's thumbs-up reaction as a +1)

[chaals]

My thumbs up is a +1.

This is the process we used for HTML 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 until it was abandoned by W3C, producing actual Recommendations. Effectively at your deadline you make a version of your spec that only includes stuff you want to put in this CR (because it's ready), on a branch. From there, it's pretty straightforward - that branch goes through the rest of the Process to Rec, removing stuff as necessary.

At the same time you publish the "master" branch as FPWD of the next version. Any additions to the spec or corrections that would require extending the CR period significantly are rolled into the next version instead.

Under the current W3C patent policy and process, it's fairly straightforward to run this process to produce a Rec every 6 months - but I have yet to meet a group that consistently works that fast, and I think it is faster than most of the outside world really wants unless you've got a lot of ecosystem developers working in tight coordination.

A yearly cycle was pretty easy to manage IMHO.