Migrate to WebAppSec?

[hober]

IIRC @mikewest invited us to move this to WebAppSec at TPAC last autumn. I think that's a fine idea. Any objections or concerns?

cc @rmondello @WICG/chairs

[mikewest]

This still sounds reasonable to me!

If this is what you'd like to do, I think the WICG process is to file an "Intent to Migrate" issue; @dveditz or I (or y'all!) can pass it along to to public-webappsec@ for approval. Assuming that goes the way I'd expect based on the TPAC feedback, we can publish an FPWD and get y'all on the road to REC.

/ccing WICG chairs, who can correct me if I'm misstating things: @marcoscaceres, @yoavweiss, @cwilso, and @travisleithead

[mikewest]

Er. I now see that you CC'd them already. Sorry about that!

[cwilso]

Really, the key here is two things: 1) a WG decision to adopt the spec (and I'd suggest, since as per the Process you need the WG's agreement to publish a FPWD, you want to do this in a WG mailing alias), and 2) someone with W3C org privileges to migrate the repo (I presume you'd want it in the W3C org, since that's where most of your specs are?) - @dontcallmedom, @plh, @sideshowbarker or @wseltzer all have appropriate privs, I think.

[hober]

Okay, I've posted to public-webappsec about this.

[hober]

@mikewest, do you think WebAppSec would also be interested in taking on Detecting the reliability of HTTP status codes?

[mikewest]

@mikewest, do you think WebAppSec would also be interested in taking on Detecting the reliability of HTTP status codes?

First I've heard of it, but it looks interesting, and is a nice compliment to the change-password-url proposal. I wonder if it needs to be completely distinct, or if it could be folded into that proposal?

Worth raising to the WG, in any event. :)

[xfq]

Can we close this now, given #30 has been merged?