Considering the name and org of this repository

[brianamarie]

Name and org of this repository

As we work to open source this manual #202, now is a good time to consider the ownership and title of this repository. Any changes we make would include some effort to make sure things are done right, but it makes sense to open source this content in the right way.

We've decided to move and rename this repository from githubtraining/training-manual to github/github-training-manual.

Here's what needs to happen to make this work:

• Prep work:
• Open pull request addressing hard coded URLs Fix hard-coded URLs #232
• Open pull request addressing redirect Configure a redirect #231
• Create repository page linking to all manuals https://github.github.com/training/
• Configure redirect from training.github.com to https://github.github.com/training/
• All at once:
  • Move this repository to github org
  • Rename this repository to github-training-manual
  • Switch the repository to public
  • Merge the PR for hard coded URLs
  • Merge the PR for redirect

Contents of post originally

Org considerations

githubtraining vs github

githubtraining 😀

Historically, this was the easiest place for this type of content because of access management. We could easily add partners or customers to this repository without fearing we were giving "too much" access. Now, there is no difference in access management. Open sourcing this repository will do most of the work there for us, regardless of the org.

• 👍 Pro: Easier installation of 3rd party apps (if needed)
• ?

github 🎉

• 👍 Pro: Brand recognition, credibility, unified message
• 👎 Con: Historical links would break
• ?

Name

training-manual vs github-for-developers-manual

training-manual 👀

It's what it's always been called.

• 👎 Con: It's vague when we consider our growing materials for other content topics
• ?

github-for-developers-manual 🚀

• 👍 Pro: It's more specific to the content
• 👎 Con: Historical links would break
• ?

Next steps

@githubtraining/githubbers @githubtraining/trainers @matthewmccullough @dcdrennen @jonlipsky @AaronKowall @amyschoen Thoughts? Are there other pros/cons that aren't considered here? Please comment below with any additional thoughts, and/or react with opinions to this original post with the emojis by the different options above.

[amyschoen]

When we expanded our internal courses, we kept the training-manual name. I had similar reasoning to what's ☝️ about breaking links since the guide's become an internal reference for a lot of students who have taken the class. It's not a perfect solution, but we ended up giving better names to the new classes like training-manual-infra and training-manual-advanced.

As for changing orgs, I have no strong feelings either way on that one. If you have manuals for other course offerings, I'd lean towards keeping them together.

[jeffmcaffer]

Do the links actually break? Typically when moving repos/orgs links get forwarded.

[amyschoen]

That’s a good point @jeffmcaffer. Repo links will get forwarded until that combination of org and repo get reused. At least from the perspective of interacting with the git repo. I’m not sure if pages links also behave that way.

[brianamarie]

@githubtraining/implementation-engineers @githubtraining/programs When you get a window of time (~5 minutes) please read this issue and vote via emoji reactions on the original post. Thank you!

[parkerbxyz]

Since this training material is used for more than developers, maybe we should stick to a more generic name.

I've liked the idea of calling it developer-training because it is more specific than training-manual and differentiates it from our other offerings. But it could also be too specific, especially considering we use the same manual and activities for our non-developer training. We call it “Git and GitHub Training” on services.github.com and ”GitHub Training for [insert role here]” in the Phoenix Catalog. It's also referred to as “GitHub Basics” in some circles. Thoughts on using the name github-training?

Source: https://services.github.com/#offerings

[parkerbxyz]

githubtraining

Historically, this was the easiest place for this type of content because of access management. We could easily add partners or customers to this repository without fearing we were giving "too much" access. Now, there is no difference in access management. Open sourcing this repository will do most of the work there for us, regardless of the org.

This will require a larger conversation outside of this issue, but I can't help but wonder if it makes sense to keep using the githubtraining organization at all considering the reason for it was created is no longer relevant. Or maybe we should move repos like this and the admin-training repo to the GitHub organization and make this the Learning Lab organization. There is a lot of crossover currently that makes it unclear what should and shouldn't be kept in this organization vs. the GitHub organization.

[whatupfoo]

I like @parkerbxyz's idea of github training; it does align with our catalog, it includes our brand and is experience-agnostic, in that it caters to both beginners and advanced git users.

[brianamarie]

Thank you all for the feedback so far!

@amyschoen @parkerbxyz @rwnfoo, what do you think about github/github-training-manual?

[whatupfoo]

That sounds good to me. 👍

[brianamarie]

Great! I appreciate the patience on this, y'all. Let's move forward with github/github-training-manual. When we do, we will need it to be a public and open source repository so those with contributor access to this repository don't lose access. I am going to rename this repo now, and move it after it is made public and the relevant issues and PRs are closed or merged. 🎉

Thank you all!