Suggest Name Change for this Effort

[cdnadmin]

I heard some confusion today during Node Interactive about what exactly was Code and Learn. Furthermore, @hackygolucky mentions in #60 :

Do we still want to call this Code & Learn? Some folks expressed confusion and would like to combine efforts with @Trott's awesome work for NodeToDo.

I kinda like something to the effect of: "Core Contributors" or "Core Contrib" or "Core Contributor Onboarding" or "Core Contrib Training"

which provide more description, right off the bat!

--Monico

[hackygolucky]

Yeah, nudging this!

I think Learning to Contribute to Node.js[Core]. My feels for Code and Learn is that the focus and its beauty is that it is as much about breaking down the barriers to the contribution process as it is about hooking people into contributing to Node.js Core.

I have had some folks suggest that there's other parts of the Node.js project that could also use this sort of onboarding and event strategy, and it might be neat to explore that. If we went with Learning to Contribute to Node.js [Core, Docs, Nodejs.org, Diagnostics, etc or don't specify if you don't want to] or even more general contribution(we did this at EmpireJS last year and it went really well!), it could open up some neat opportunities and invite more participation.

I sort of hate the name I've come up with because it isn't catchy, but I think it's clear?

I tried to do some crowdsourcing with naming, and the delightful @jasonrhodes of NodeSchool mentioned Merge Into Node which has great community and contribution connotations(but is slightly less clear).

[Trott]

Node Merge?

Commit To Node? (Or get cute/Prince-like with Commit 2 Node?)

Go ridiculous with Contributation or Contribulation?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel here: Node 4 U 2

(I know someone whose super power is the ability to name things. I might ask them to give this some thought.)

[MylesBorins]

Commit With Node?

…

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Rich Trott ***@***.***> wrote: Node Merge? Commit To Node? (Or get cute/Prince-like with Commit 2 Node?) Go ridiculous with Contributation or Contribulation? Scraping the bottom of the barrel here: Node 4 U 2 (I know someone whose super power is the ability to name things. I might ask them to give this some thought.) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#62 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV21QAf7M2pc26RRjcGUZJp_oLh51ks5rV7x7gaJpZM4LBEQ2> .

-- Best, Myles Borins

[Humuhumu]

The trick here is to come up with a word/phrase that can stand alone as a distinct descriptor of this effort/program. There are great describing phrases above, but these are all words and phrases that already hold meaning in the Node universe, and could lead to confusion, or could let this program fall into obscurity. It's the distinct aspect that could use a bit of work. As @hackygolucky says, something more catchy, eh?

What about Core Onramp?

[mikeal]

I'm going to withdraw my earlier view that we need a name change.

While the current name is not very descriptive it actually has the effect of pulling in people who would not otherwise attempt core contributions.

[williamkapke]

I believe this program's biggest attraction is that folks get to interact (in person!) with the core contributors while they do it. I think this REALLY gives them the confidence that they're doing it right and will not get stuck on any snags they can't figure out.

So, if there is a name change- I'd suggest working in something that highlights this.

[Trott]

I think it's safe to close this issue at this point, but if anyone disagrees, please feel free to comment saying so.