Create Metrics SIG CODEOWNERS in OTEPs and Spec repos

[jmacd]

The Metrics SIG has several members who I would like to make into approvers for metrics-related specifications. Since we now have a subdirectory in the Spec repo, specification/metrics, we can create CODEOWNERS there to list metrics approvers.

I would nominate these approvers for metrics:
@bogdandrutu
@jmacd
@c24t
@MrAlias
@jkwatson
@rghetia
@lzchen
@cijothomas

The same is needed in the OTEPs repo, but we don't have subdirectories there. I think we could probably divide the OTEPs text directory into sub-directories for this purpose, but maybe we should just add approvers for the OTEPs directory. Most of the above people are obviously qualified to approve non-metrics issues.

[yurishkuro]

+1

[carlosalberto]

TC decided to go ahead with this and this specific list of approvers (usually the TC would nominate them, btw). One question is whether this sub-spec-sig will have both approvers and maintainers.

[jmacd]

How do we move this forward? I think we do not need both maintainers and approvers at this point, mainly because there's already overlap with existing maintainers in the above approvers list (Bogdan is in both groups).

[cijothomas]

https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/master/community-membership.md#approver

Reviewer for or author of at least 10 substantial PRs to the codebase, with the definition of substantial subject to the maintainer's discretion (e.g. refactors/adds new functionality rather than one-line pulls).

The official requirement calls of at least 10 PRs in the repo. I don't meet this criteria, so my name can be removed from the list.

Will continue review metric specs as a regular member :)

[jmacd]

I understand @cijothomas, but if 10 substantial PRs in the OTel specification or OTEPs on metrics were a requirement, very few would quality. This list is a group of people that have shown ongoing interest, have written code, and have participated in the SIG discussion in an ongoing basis. I continue to recommend you. :-)

[jmacd]

This is unfinished, and it's causing problems. We now have metrics approvers in the Spec repo, but not OTEPs. There are 5 OTEPs that should merge about metrics and I believe we have all the right approvers.