update readme to remove configuration working group

[codeboten]

With the stability of the Configuration schema being achieved, the goal of the original working group has been reached and the project completed. I would recommend future issues with the configuration specification and schema be folded into the general specification call.

[trask]

Is the plan for the opentelemetry-configuration repo maintainership to transition to the specification maintainers (i.e. @open-telemetry/technical-committee)? Or for the configuration repo to be folded into the specification repo? thanks

[jack-berg]

Is the plan for the opentelemetry-configuration repo maintainership to transition to the specification maintainers (i.e. @open-telemetry/technical-committee)?

I'm not sure. I think of the opentelemetry-configuration repo as an extension of the spec, like opentelemetry-proto, semantic-conventions, opamp-spec. The one thing that's a bit odd is that the different related bits ultimately have different maintainer groups:

• API, SDK, high level data model description and yaml representation live in the spec, maintained by technical-commitee
• The data model schema lives in opentelemetry-configuration, maintained by configuration-maintainers

By coincidence, most of the configuration-approvers and all of configuration-maintainers are already spec-sponsors.

Going forward, I'd like to see the spec contribution process updated to be "declarative configuration first", where additions to the SDK spec need to be accompanied by proposals on corresponding proposals for schema changes to opentelemetry-configuration. This will help ensure that features are evaluated holistically, since the config plays a key part of the UX. In this future, config work really is spec work.

Do we need to fix the maintenance responsibility mismatch? Or is maintaining the config schema a different enough job to warrant a different group, and its good enough that configuration-maintainers has strong overlap with the spec sponsors?

Or for the configuration repo to be folded into the specification repo?

I don't think so. Historically, we've peeled pieces out of the spec rather than rolling them in.