Add subprojects for committees

[nikhita]

Not sure if we officially say that committees can have subprojects, but I noticed steering as a subproject for sig-arch after creating #3437: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-architecture#subprojects.

Technically, committees also own repos (and thus "code") so I guess it makes sense to list these as subprojects?

/hold
/committee steering
/committee product-security
/cc @kubernetes/steering-committee @kubernetes/product-security-committee @mattfarina @jdumars

/sig contributor-experience
/assign @spiffxp
(generator owner)

[nikhita]

Why was this originally classified under steering? 🤔

[spiffxp]

no idea, I feel like it should be punted, but that can be a decision in a separate PR (and I would look to @thockin to make it)

[parispittman]

it looks like the steering language in arch subproject was placeholder text for when sigs.yaml held committees. i dont think they had intention for committees to have subprojects.

[nikhita]

Yeah, subprojects looks weird...I can do something like this, but not sure if that adds additional complications and confusion. 🤔

type Committee struct {
	Group
	Repos []string
}

[spiffxp]

/approve
/lgtm
Personally for the moment I'd rather keep the structs as they are (keep the concept of subprojects around) and not over-specialize. I don't see the value in the added complexity.

/hold
I'll ask steering if they care

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nikhita, spiffxp

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [spiffxp]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[spiffxp]

https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/MGK0bDGwZNk/v5BGx750CwAJ - lazy consensus, will remove the /hold if no objections by Friday am PT

[philips]

/lgtm

at some point security needs to own this for example https://github.com/philips/oncall-issue-filer

[spiffxp]

/hold cancel
based on the positive responses on https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/MGK0bDGwZNk/v5BGx750CwAJ I'm moving ahead of lazy consensus

The main nit is that we want to be clear these subprojects should pertain to the committees' business, rather than the kubernetes project itself. Let's address in governance docs