API ownership

[bhack]

As we still maintain here the API governance I want to ask if it could be possible to expose for transparency the API ownership in our community.

We had a tangential discussion at tensorflow/tensorflow#51739 (comment) as we have still really a very limited public API ownership in CODEOWNERS files.

Also, there are cases in which emerges that we don't have an active API ownership for a specific subnamespace like in keras-team/keras-cv#74 (comment).

This topic could be partially related and extended also to the @yarri-oss comment at #384 (review)

[ematejska]

Thanks for this issue. Following up with the API Owners.

[bhack]

@ematejska As you can see also in keras-team/keras-cv#146 (comment) it is always hard to interact/mention the right codeowner if we don't adopt a codeowner transparency.

[bhack]

The last case was confirmed keras-team/keras-cv#146 (comment) like in keras-team/keras-cv#74 (comment)

[bhack]

/cc @theadactyl

[wangpengmit]

cc @rohan100jain

[ematejska]

@theadactyl To put on the agenda for the next TF steering committee mtg.

[bhack]

@theadactyl To put on the agenda for the next TF steering committee mtg.

Check also the recent policy change in pytorch:
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/78850/files

[bhack]

We have an example of API ownership at:
https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/community/persons_of_interest.html