The o-f repos currently are a mix of approaches of code ownership. The [contributor-ladder](https://github.com/operator-framework/community/blob/master/contributor-ladder.md) document describes an approach which would most likely require prow/tide to define/enforce group policies.
These approaches do not appear to be trivially reproducible without a prow/tide instance (which CNCF projects do not have), so alternatives need to be researched, gaps identified, and a proposal constructed to the steering committee about how we can implement and/or update contributor ladder to reach an amenable solution.

*Update:*
Red Hat is donating prow/tide resources to provide a consistent approach to these repositories. (documentation for this in the area of https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/how-tos/onboarding-a-new-component/#prow-configuration)

1. repos will need migration of GH CODEOWNERS files to prow OWNERS / OWNERS_ALIAS files
2. prow config should be used to enforce review/approver status by label
3. no test jobs should need to be configured
4. repos should require 2 labels: approve / lgtm to merge
5. prow should accept review approval as an lgtm (or approve?)
6. merge queues will need to be turned off in these repos since prow handles merging
7. branch protection needs to be turned on for the master/main branches in prow so that it requires pass of the same CI jobs
[operator-registry](https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry) is a good example repo for most of this, as represented in the configuration

• https://github.com/openshift/release/tree/master/core-services/prow/02_config/operator-framework/operator-registry
• https://github.com/openshift/release/tree/master/ci-operator/config/operator-framework/operator-registry