Fix & re-nominate CODEOWNERS

[rohanpm]

This repo had a CODEOWNERS file, but it never worked since it didn't
use the correct syntax. Let's make it work and also revise the list
of owners according to actual contributors (new nominated owners are
the top 3 committers).

[rohanpm]

@midnightercz @lipoja @querti

I happened to notice that CODEOWNERS was never set correctly on this repo. Please check if this list of owners feels right to you.

[querti]

CLOUDDST is splitting into two scrum teams very soon, so it's possible that some of the proposed owners won't maintain this project going forward.

I think we should put a pin in this until it sorts itself out.

[lipoja]

CLOUDDST is splitting into two scrum teams very soon, so it's possible that some of the proposed owners won't maintain this project going forward.

I think we should put a pin in this until it sorts itself out.

I think this is based on contribution and how well you know this lib and not how we are split in scrum teams.

[rohanpm]

I think you should accept a nomination as CODEOWNER if and only if you're willing to be active on review for the project, will help to make releases, will help to make design decisions etc.

This isn't directly connected to whether you expect your team to produce work for this project. After all, you already don't have items appearing in your team's backlog asking you to review changes to this project, and same will be true after any team refactorings. There also isn't any rule that you should only review changes relevant to your team (in fact it's explicitly not supposed to be that way).

I see it as each dev's personal choice, do you want to share responsibility for the direction of this project or not. What your team asks you to work on is one of the factors for consideration, but not a dominant one.