MINOR: [CI] remove westonpace from CODEOWNERS

[westonpace]

Rationale for this change

I am not actively reviewing PRs for Arrow ☹️

What changes are included in this PR?

I removed myself from the CODEOWNERS files in the acero and engine subfolders. Based on the current structure these will fall back to pitrou.

Are these changes tested?

No

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Removes an inactive reviewer from Arrow’s CODEOWNERS entries so C++ acero and engine paths fall back to the existing broader /cpp/src/arrow/ @pitrou ownership.

Changes:

• Deleted explicit CODEOWNERS assignments for /cpp/src/arrow/acero and /cpp/src/arrow/engine.
• Ensured these subpaths are now covered by the existing /cpp/src/arrow/ @pitrou rule.

[kou]

+1

BTW, @zanmato1984 are you interested in being a CODEOWNER of them?

[zanmato1984]

+1

[zanmato1984]

+1

BTW, @zanmato1984 are you interested in being a CODEOWNER of them?

I can take the code owner of acero. For engine, because I don't directly work on it so I'll excuse myself for now.

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2f5384f.

There were 66 benchmark results with an error:

• Commit Run on amd64-m5-4xlarge-linux at 2026-07-08 20:19:13Z
  • file-write (R) with compression=snappy, dataset=fanniemae_2016Q4, file_type=parquet, input_type=table, language=R
  • file-write (R) with compression=snappy, dataset=fanniemae_2016Q4, file_type=parquet, input_type=table, language=R
• and 64 more (see the report linked below)

There were 6 benchmark results indicating a performance regression:

• Commit Run on amd64-m5-4xlarge-linux at 2026-07-08 20:19:13Z
  • file-read (R) with compression=uncompressed, dataset=nyctaxi_2010-01, file_type=feather, language=R, output_type=dataframe
  • file-read (R) with compression=uncompressed, dataset=nyctaxi_2010-01, file_type=feather, language=R, output_type=dataframe
• and 4 more (see the report linked below)

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 4 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.