Decide how to unify this site with W3C Digital Verification CG page and implement

[kimdhamilton]

@msporny @ChristopherA

In an earlier thread we mentioned unifying the Digital Verification CG github organization and/or site with this org and site.

Looking at how Manu handled the other migrations (to preserve links), it looks like we would achieve this as follows:

1. merge the github organizations:
   • moving the DVCG repos here
   • recreating the repos under DVCG as forks
2. add the signature spec links listed here to the CCG site

Any objections to this? Anything I'm missing?

[msporny]

My only concern is moving them back here prematurely. It took a bit of effort to move them over there... if we're going to move them back, it would be good to be absolutely sure we want to do that. :)

That said, I'm happy to move those specs into a larger, more active community.

[ChristopherA]

My concern is that cryptographers like Jan may have less time to follow both the digital verification work & the credentials work. If we had more, I'd poll them, but we don't.

[kimdhamilton]

How about for now we keep them separate, and I'll update this site to point there? There's no huge rush to do a full merge IMO.

[msporny]

Pros with keeping specs in DVCG:

• Clean separation between "credentials" and "the cryptography we use for credentials".
• Folks can't complain that the specs are being incubated by "people that are not crypto experts"

Cons with keeping things in DVCG:

• The longer things are there and that community is not active, the easier it will be for folks to criticize the DVCG for not "properly incubating" those specs.
• The CCG specs have a direct dependence on the DVCG specs, which are often changed as a result of stuff we're doing in the CCG, so the coupling is tighter in reality.
• The CCG landing page would triple in size based on "number of specs we're working on".

[kimdhamilton]

@ChristopherA and I discussed on Friday, and we are leaning towards keeping them separate, and viewing the Digital Verification CG as an informal task force within the Credentials CG.

I like that this keeps issue tracking separate. Some other notes:

• I personally will need to make some updates on some DVCG specs soon so I'm not too worried about that
• We can keep the CCG landing page as a simple pointer to DVCG (and not list all specs individually). I also don't like any duplication.

We will discuss this proposal during next meeting.

[OR13]

@kimdhamilton @ChristopherA this issue should be updated.