Add setting to allow CODEOWNERS to submit and merge PRs without requiring additional approval

[mluypaert]

Select Topic Area

Product Feedback

Body

Context

As an author of a (public) repository, I need some control over the changes others (within the organisation) can make to my code. In order to do so, I use the CODEOWNERS feature combined with branch protection rules to require code owners review on certain code (like all github actions code defining the automatically run and required status checks, as recommended by the github actions security best practices).

Problem

Doing so currently requires me to get approval on PRs that I create as author (and authorised codeowner), while I am blocked from approving PRs that I authored myself, blocking me from proceeding to merge the PR. This currently forces me to have admin permissions on that repository, and use them to bypass the required PR approval in order to be able to merge, as I am the only regular developer on this repository and asking others to approve would be meaningless.

While one can argue that there is no use in opening and merging self-approved PRs, the automatically run status-checks are still required to pass before merge, making even self-approved PRs a useful quality-control instrument, on which further GH actions workflows triggered on merge can depend.

Feature request

Please add an option to not require (additional) PR approval from code-owners when changes are made by those code-owners as defined in the CODEOWNERS file (in other words, users or teams assigned as code-owners should be able to change the respective code they are owners of without requiring approval by others).
Alternatively, please add an option in the github repository settings (preferably in the branch protection settings) that allows authors of PRs to approve their own PRs when enabled.

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[oncilla]

I think this is a duplicate of https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9636

This feature would be really helpful 🚀

[mluypaert]

While I agree this is discussing the same codeowner's PR review/approval requirement, I do not want to require approval by anyone, except when the change was made by someone that is not the code-owner, so the view on the solution seems to be different from discussion 9636.

[oncilla]

I see. Sorry for the confusion then,