fix: add a section for stakeholder reviews in issue template

[gauthierpetetin]

Description

Adds a section for "stakeholder reviews" in general issue template.
This gives the opportunity to indicate, when creating a new issue, if the work needs to be reviewed by specific stakeholders before being merged.

Same PR for Extension

Related issues

• NA

Manual testing steps

1. Go to this test repo
2. Create a new issue

Screenshots/Recordings

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
• I've linked related issues
• I've included manual testing steps
• I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
• I’ve included tests if applicable
• I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

• I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
• I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

[github-actions]

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

[Cal-L]

LGTM

[chrisleewilcox]

@gauthierpetetin can we re-word avoid QA statement? We want to encourage a thoughtful process for teams to make a sufficient determination if a PR should go to QA or if it's not necessary. Something like...
"Automation tests are required to pass before merging PRs but not all changes are covered by automation tests. Please review if QA is needed beyond automation tests."

[gauthierpetetin]

@chrisleewilcox yes that makes sense, it's updated now. Thanks for the review.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (69c79df) 37.39% compared to head (a7e2460) 37.39%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7745   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   37.39%   37.39%           
=======================================
  Files        1052     1052           
  Lines       28175    28175           
  Branches     2517     2517           
=======================================
  Hits        10536    10536           
  Misses      17040    17040           
  Partials      599      599           

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

[NicolasMassart]

Is this change going to be clear enough for external users?
Should we add something like "leave this blank if you are not part of MM team"? and then check the box on our side when we qualify issues?

[gauthierpetetin]

@NicolasMassart , yes good point, it is updated now

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[NicolasMassart]

Looks good to me.

[chrisleewilcox]

LGTM