Define specification sponsor and seed with spec approvers

[jack-berg]

Originally proposed in https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/issues/3821, this PR formalizes the notion of a specification sponsor, which the TC and GC have been discussing for some time now.

A spec sponsor is a trusted collaborator of the TC. They are trusted to be assigned the type of complex specification issues that tend to require a fair bit of experience operating in the OpenTelemetry project. They can also sponsor issues such that other collaborators can drive the work under the help / guidance of the sponsor.

This idea should be thought of as an evolution and expansion of the role of a spec approver. It adds more privileges / responsibilities to that group and takes away the signal specific status. It allows us to grow the group of people who can contribute to the spec, and signal an additional level of trust in members.

This PR seeds the spec sponsor pool with the existing spec approvers, but this is a good opportunity to check in with the current spec approvers to make sure they're aligned with the privileges / responsibilities and are still interested / able to contribute to the project.

[jack-berg]

cc @open-telemetry/technical-committee

[jack-berg]

Would like to see more approvals from @open-telemetry/technical-committee who would be responsible for nominating / approving spec sponsors. Please review / comment when you can.

[pellared]

nit:

It adds more [...] responsibilities to that group

Shouldn't each "sponsor-to-be" acknowledge that they want to be a sponsor (e.g. by asking for an approval)?

[trask]

nit:

It adds more [...] responsibilities to that group

Shouldn't each "sponsor-to-be" acknowledge that they want to be a sponsor (e.g. by asking for an approval)?

@kumoroku @lzchen - can you let us know if you want to be included in the new specification sponsor role or not? (update: I've also just pinged them on Slack)

@cijothomas @djaglowski @tedsuo @MrAlias - have approved already

@Oberon00 has confirmed being moved to the new role

@iNikem has confirmed being moving to emeritus

@zenmoto - was moved to emeritus recently (#2117), so can probably be removed from specification sponsor list

[Oberon00]

@trask Hi, tentatively, I'm fine with being moved to the new role so you can go ahead with this PR. I will need to figure out internally if I actually have the time to do any meaningful work for the OTel spec. It's possible that I ask for being moved to emeritus later.

[iNikem]

nit:

It adds more [...] responsibilities to that group

Shouldn't each "sponsor-to-be" acknowledge that they want to be a sponsor (e.g. by asking for an approval)?

@kumoroku @lzchen @iNikem - can you let us know if you want to be included in the new specification sponsor role or not? (update: I've also just pinged them on Slack)

I am not currently active in OpenTelemetry project. At the present time it does not make sense to include me in spec sponsors.

[lzchen]

@kumoroku @lzchen - can you let us know if you want to be included in the new specification sponsor role or not? (update: I've also just pinged them on Slack)

@trask

Hey I am currently overloaded with other responsibilities and most likely will not have time to commit to be a sponsor but am definitely interested in the future if my situation changes! Also am willing to contribute more to specs to earn a sponsorship role in the future if need be.

[jack-berg]

I pushed a commit to move @lzchen and @kumoroku to emeritus. Haven't heard back from Christian in a week and revisit later if needed.

[jack-berg]

@open-telemetry/governance-committee I think this is ready to merge. Thanks!