This is an accurate representation of the workflow we have proposed with one exception. We are adding an "Organization" object in the side panel (similar to Groups and Projects). This helps users understand the object hierarchy, especially when features or functionality applies Org-wide. Users would click the Organization object, and Artifact Registry will appear as a link in the side panel for all members of the Org.

We want to enable customers to self-service purchase AR, so if a user has the permissions to do so, this should be as simple as a few clicks, and would be immediately available for all org members. Here are some visuals

@tkuah @alexpooley What's the difference between these? Why do we make a distinction if the outcome is the same? The rest makes sense to me.

| internal | private | Organization members | Group/Project members |
| private | private | Organization members | Group/Project members |

@tkuah Yes. I have created the issues under the delivery epic so we can build the step by step workflow, but can also distribute that work across engineers as needed. Happy to adjust or add. If you believe something is missing, you can add it, or we can discuss and I'll add it.

This epic scopes functionality for TLG transfer into a destination Org + dissolving the source Org (if it's empty).

Thank you @dblessing and @peterhegman. I agree that for launch, a hybrid approach is the right decision. The reasons, as I see them are

1. We're not adding scope that would delay launch. In our discussions, pivoting to the new approach would add at least 1 month to the non-isolated Orgs launch timeline. We don't have the ability to delay launch at this point since Artifact Registry is planning their launch in Q2 (I believe end of June).
2. We're aligning the UX to self-managed and dedicated, rather than change their experience to match .com (which represents a much smaller subset of the customer base), reducing the likelihood of breaking changes that @dblessing mentioned. We'll also bring controls to Organization Admins/ Owners they previously didn't have in a way that makes sense. Right now the admin area has user management and settings. I believe we'll add Billing there eventually.
3. We won't create a confusing interim state for settings that @peterhegman mentioned. If we keep everything in one place, users will know where to go, rather than stitching things together from several different places. We'll link users that click settings to the admin area, and they can make changes there if they have the correct permissions/ role.

The things we agreed we will add/ amend are:

1. Ensure we add an Organization object in the side panel so customers understand there's a new object in the hierarchy.
2. Customers can click on the Organizations object and will be taken to a Landing Page where they will see something. Not sure yet what they will see, we need @jason_istakinganap or @mvanremmerden to provide guidance here. I like Peter's suggestion noted above, but we need UX to validate.
3. If a user is a member of multiple, non-isolated orgs on .com, we will introduce a page that enables them to choose the Organization they want to work in. This replaces the Org Switcher/ Account Switcher functionality we previously had in the upper left hand corner, and provides context if they're working in an Org that has unique features (like Artifact Registry) enabled. Multiple orgs for users on .com might be an edge case (most TLGs for paid customers are private so I'm not sure how much those users work in both their groups/ projects AND contribute to the broader open source community. I'll dig into the data on this and provide my findings.

The only thing that really diverges from the proposed experience is how Org Admins/ Owners manage the controls like users and settings, which will be in the admin area, but that will be hidden from users that don't have the permissions to it.

I think this is the best approach given where we are, timelines we need to meet, and resources available. It starts to introduce the framework Marcel and Jason recommend, but addresses the potential issues engineering called out above. @mvanremmerden @jason_istakinganap @mandrewsgl Please provide any feedback you may have and we'll take it forward.