[chore] add text about unmaintained vendor components

[TylerHelmuth]

Description

This PR adds language to our definition of unmaintained that allows vendor-specific components to become unmaintained if they lose an active code owner from the contributing vendor. This is necessary to prevent a vendor-specific component form being maintained only by the community instead of by the vendor. Since vendors had privileged access to getting components accepted in contrib they must be held to a higher standard for maintaining those components.

[atoulme]

How do we know if a component is vendor-specific? Or maybe over time, do we want to no longer have any vendor-specific components?

[TylerHelmuth]

How do we know if a component is vendor-specific? Or maybe over time, do we want to no longer have any vendor-specific components?

Good question. The git history/issues would have it, but right now it is probably relying more on the approvers/maintainers that were assigned as part of the rotation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.53%. Comparing base (942f19a) to head (e0a4bfa).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #11616   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.53%   91.53%           
=======================================
  Files         441      441           
  Lines       23922    23922           
=======================================
  Hits        21896    21896           
  Misses       1650     1650           
  Partials      376      376           

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

[bogdandrutu]

Just to make is more interesting, is "datadogreceiver" vendor specific?

The git history/issues would have it, but right now it is probably relying more on the approvers/maintainers that were assigned as part of the rotation.

Can you tell me some "criterias" will you put to the history to determine this?

[TylerHelmuth]

@bogdandrutu I'd consider a component in contrib vendor-specific if during the component proposal process the vendor-specific checkbox was checked and the vendor-specific component label was used ((implying the vendor submitted the proposal) and it was accepted under the grounds of "yes we have to accept this so that we are playing fair with all vendors".

The datadogreceiver was not contributed under the above measures (and there are a few other components in contrib that touch vendor things but were not contributed by that vendor) so I would say it, and the others, are not vendor specific.

I think to merge this change it would be appropriate to classify the components in contrib that are subject to the additional guidelines this PR proposes. I could do that by adding something to the metadata.yaml for the components or by building some list somewhere that indicates the vendor-specific components contrib houses.

[mx-psi]

Suggested change

	it has no active code owners from the vendor even if there are other code owners listed. Other active code
	they have no active code owners from the vendor even if there are other code owners listed. Other active code

[mx-psi]

Should we say that we will attempt to reach out to the vendor to notify them of the component being marked as unmaintained?

[atoulme]

@TylerHelmuth please resolve conflicts

[codeboten]

This looks ok to me, conflicts need resolving though