Move projects under participants in URL structure

[chadwhitacre]

In the spirit of differentiating participants and projects (#3852), I think it could make sense to move projects underneath participants in our URL structure. So instead of:

https://gratipay.com/~kennethreitz/
https://gratipay.com/requests/

We would have:

https://gratipay.com/kennethreitz/
https://gratipay.com/kennethreitz/requests/

Projects have exactly one owner: the legal entity behind them. This URL structure makes the ownership clear, and could help differentiate the two.

Fiscal sponsorship could throw a wrench in this—if hypothetically PSF were the sponsor of Requests, which would we have,

https://gratipay.com/kennethreitz/requests/

or

https://gratipay.com/python/requests/?

[mattbk]

I think this

1. Increases the likelihood of links breaking
2. Reduces projects from primary to secondary importance

That being said, it's what GitHub does.

[chadwhitacre]

Increases the likelihood of links breaking

Yeah, we'd want to be careful about maintaining redirects. Perhaps we would need to snapshot project names at the time of the cutover in order to be able to redirect them in perpetuity?

Reduces projects from primary to secondary importance

I think your GitHub example counters this somewhat.

[mattbk]

From #4338:

I think @mattbk and I talked about this but I don't recall reticketing (dupe alert!).
I propose that we move projects under owners in the URL structure, like GitHub does:
https://gratipay.com/Gratipay/
https://gratipay.com/~gratipay/Gratipay/
Contributes to disambiguation of ~participants and projects (#3852).

[chadwhitacre]

+1 from @andrew in Libraries.io slack.

[chadwhitacre]

The npm integration (#4305) puts pressure on this, because (e.g.) https://gratipay.com/mysql/ isn't actually MySQL. 😳

[chadwhitacre]

Closing the loop: gratipay/project-review#424. ☺️

[chadwhitacre]

+1 from @balupton in gratipay/project-review#465.