Bug fix- Devs should not be unassigned from their own Pre-work Checklist

[t-will-gillis]

Fixes #6555

What changes did you make?

• Changed check for whether Draft label is present, to instead check whether either [Draft, Complexity: Prework] are present
• Edited message to note that "Pre-work Checklist"s are excluded- that is, OK for a dev to self-assign to their "Pre-work Checklist" from "New Issue Approval"

Why did you make the changes (we will use this info to test)?

• To exclude "Pre-work Checklist"s from this action

Screenshots of Proposed Changes Of The Website (if any, please do not screen shot code changes)

• Self repo #580 showing the message and unassigning except for when Draft or Complexity: Prework on issue.

[github-actions]

Want to review this pull request? Take a look at this documentation for a step by step guide!

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.

git checkout -b t-will-gillis-fix-unassigning-preworks-6555 gh-pages
git pull https://github.com/t-will-gillis/website.git fix-unassigning-preworks-6555

---

Note that CONTRIBUTING.md cannot previewed locally; rather it should be previewed at this URL:

https://github.com/t-will-gillis/website/blob/fix-unassigning-preworks-6555/CONTRIBUTING.md  

[jphamtv]

@t-will-gillis: Should we adjust the exception to avoid unassigning when the user is the issue creator or was assigned by someone else? This would handle cases where the Draft label is forgotten or not needed, and when Bonnie or merge team assign someone to an ER they forgot to self-assign.

[t-will-gillis]

Hey @jphamtv I messaged you also. I do think those are good questions. I wonder if the solution for right now should be to revert #6502 and have a team meeting to determine exactly what this action should do?

[jphamtv]

Hey @jphamtv I messaged you also. I do think those are good questions. I wonder if the solution for right now should be to revert #6502 and have a team meeting to determine exactly what this action should do?

Yeah that sounds like a good solution for now until we can discuss at the next meeting.

[t-will-gillis]

Closing the PR temporarily and replacing with #6557 which reverts the previous PR #6502 so that we can discuss in a team meeting what the final action should do, what exclusions we need, etc.