// About · WG21

WG21

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21 is the international standards working group responsible for the C++ Programming Language. It has produced eight revisions of the standard and currently works toward C++26.

// About WG21

What is WG21?

WG21 (formally ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21) is the international standards working group responsible for the C++ Programming Language. Chartered under ISO's Joint Technical Committee 1, it operates within Subcommittee 22 for programming languages. Formed in 1990–91, it has produced eight revisions of the standard.

How it works

The committee meets three times per year for week-long face-to-face sessions. Proposals enter as P-numbered documents, are revised across multiple meetings, and reach the standard through technical consensus, a process that typically takes two to four years per feature.

The standard

ISO/IEC 14882 defines the C++ programming language. The working draft is maintained as a public LaTeX document in the cplusplus/draft repository on GitHub. C++26 is currently in development, find out more information on the next plenary here.

The standards process

Papers enter as drafts submitted to the mailing. They are presented to the relevant subgroup, revised based on feedback, and forwarded through evolution (EWG/LEWG) to wording review (CWG/LWG) before a final plenary vote. Full ISO ratification follows committee consensus.

// Standards Track

  1. C++98
  2. C++03
  3. C++11
  4. C++14
  5. C++17
  6. C++20
  7. C++23
  8. C++26
  9. C++29

triennial release cadence · C++26 working draft in progress · ISO/IEC 14882

// The WG21 Consensus Model

  1. step 01

    Author writes paper

    A committee member identifies a problem or opportunity and drafts a proposal document.

  2. step 02

    Paper enters queue

    The paper is submitted to the mailing and formally enters the committee review pipeline.

  3. step 03

    Paper waits 2–3 years

    Papers are scheduled across multiple meetings for incremental review and revision.

  4. step 04

    Paper presented to room

    The author presents the proposal to the full committee or relevant study group.

  5. step 05

    Room votes on preferences

    Attendees express support, neutrality, or objection via a structured straw poll.

  6. step 06

    Technical consensus reached

    The result is recorded as technical consensus and forwarded for wording review.

note: Technical consensus is not necessarily unanimity. All dissenting opinions are carefully noted and preserved for posterity in the meeting minutes.