chore(CODEOWNERS): Use usernames instead of groups

[mnonnenmacher]

Use usernames instead of groups in the CODEOWNERS file to make the code owners more transparent to external contributors.

This also solves the issue that when a team members picks up a review, it is indivudally assigned as a reviewer of the PR, and all other team members are removed from the reviewers list.

While at it, remove some entries which have become redundant because new members were added to the kotlin-devs team in the meantime.

[mnonnenmacher]

@sschuberth GitHub complains that @bs-ondem does not have write access to the repository, should we just remove the entry for /**/*Sw360*?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.39%. Comparing base (da9c355) to head (7193599).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #10818   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     57.39%   57.39%           
  Complexity     1674     1674           
=========================================
  Files           346      346           
  Lines         12764    12764           
  Branches       1210     1210           
=========================================
  Hits           7326     7326           
  Misses         4972     4972           
  Partials        466      466           

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-docker	71.11% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
test-ubuntu-24.04	41.92% <ø> (ø)
test-windows-2025	41.90% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sschuberth]

I'd prefer to not quote any https://github.com/orgs/oss-review-toolkit/teams names here as I wanted to go through these with @oss-review-toolkit/tsc soon to clean up some redundancy and confusion there.

But we should probably document the general idea behind this "catch all" entry, like by saying "General owners of the Kotlin code base."

[mnonnenmacher]

How about first discussing how we want to organize this and then updating the descriptions in the file afterward, and keep the group based assignments until then? AFAIK we also have no public list of people who are committers (according to the role described in the charter) and if the "owners of legally relevant documents" proposed below are not equal to the TSC members this also needs to be documented somewhere.

[sschuberth]

Of course I'm fine with discussing the GitHub team structure first. But even after that I'd not quote the (new) names here, just because it creates maintenance effort if teams change again.

[mnonnenmacher]

My point is that I want to describe why people are listed here, not explain what the file patterns mean. Currently this mostly maps to people who are in certain teams which also give them write permission to the repository. In future I would prefer something like "TSC members" or "Project committers" and also add links to the official lists of people with these roles so that it is clear how the lists are updated. For example, "Owners of legally relevant documents" does not explain why these users own these documents. That's why I wanted to keep the descriptions technical for now.

[sschuberth]

Also here, I'd prefer to more general comment to describe the idea, like "Contributors who usually review documentation."

[sschuberth]

The comment could be "Owners of legally relevant documents."

[sschuberth]

@sschuberth GitHub complains that @bs-ondem does not have write access to the repository, should we just remove the entry for /**/*Sw360*?

Yes, I think it's fine to not have a dedicated entry there, as that code has not really been touched in quite some time.