instancetype: Separate docs and give ownership to sub-project

[lyarwood]

/cc @aburdenthehand /cc @0xFelix /cc @vladikr

What this PR does / why we need it:

I'd like to rework the instance type docs quite extensively during the 1.4 cycle. Ahead of this it would be useful if we could give ownership of the docs to the instance type sub-project approvers as has already happened with the code within KubeVirt itself.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged): Fixes #818

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR. Approvers are expected to review this list.

• [ ] Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
• [ ] PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
• [ ] Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
• [ ] Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
• [ ] Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
• [ ] Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
• [ ] Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
• [ ] Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note:

NONE

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign phoracek for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - **[OWNERS](https://github.com/kubevirt/user-guide/blob/main/OWNERS)** Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

[0xFelix]

@phoracek PTAL, thanks!

[phoracek]

@lyarwood I fully support and appreciate you owning your part of the user-guide. However, would you please split the part where you introduce a new subsection of "User Workloads" page from the OWNERS change? It may require you to explicitly list all the files your group owns instead of having a convenient subdirectory.

I would like @aburdenthehand to review the change to the structure, and that may take a while. Personally, I don't like that it adds another layer to the menu, but perhaps we can make it work.

[kubevirt-bot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes-sigs/prow](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/prow/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[kubevirt-bot]

Pull requests that are marked with lgtm should receive a review from an approver within 1 week.

After that period the bot marks them with the label needs-approver-review.

/label needs-approver-review

[kubevirt-bot]

@kubevirt-bot: The label(s) needs-approver-review cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them.

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubevirt/user-guide/pull/827#issuecomment-2368418956): >Pull requests that are marked with `lgtm` should receive a review >from an approver within 1 week. > >After that period the bot marks them with the label `needs-approver-review`. > >/label needs-approver-review Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes-sigs/prow](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/prow/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[aburdenthehand]

+1 to Petr's comment. Especially the taking ownership of content :tada: Are you planning on adding a lot of content? Like, does it make more sense to put this at the same level as 'Workloads' and 'Monitoring'? That gets the same sensible ownership of the directory but without the nested level in the TOC.

Would there be any other content from this section that would make sense to group together with instancetypes, that compute/instancetypes would own? (I ask because I wondered if something like 'Presets' would be a useful section name so that it also draws the attention of folks that aren't familiar with instancetypes as a term, so I might expect to see presets and templates also be pulled into that box.)