PEP 1: Relax CODEOWNERS rule to allow PEP editors to "own" PEPs

[AA-Turner]

xref #2228 (comment)

A

[CAM-Gerlach]

Yeah, it certainly seems like a simple oversight to me; PEP 1 may not have envisioned PEP editors who weren't core developers, like you, me and @JelleZijlstra are today. This affects you too on PEP 676, and @JelleZijlstra is already listed as CODEOWNER on PEP 673 and PEP 675, so it seems worth clarifying (even if, I think, we all understand the intent of it).

[AA-Turner]

Build failed due to reST typo, now fixed.

[JelleZijlstra]

#2112 is where we generally approved PEP editors as sponsors. This is consistent with that change.

[CAM-Gerlach]

Two small textual suggestions; otherwise ✔️ from me

[AA-Turner]

We've three PEP editors approving, I'll wait until tomorrow afternoon (~4pm UTC, 20/01) and merge if there's no negative comments

A

[Rosuav]

I wonder if the last sentence might be less awkward as "sponsor/co-author(s) are added"? The singular/plural discrepancy is hard to handle, but maybe combining them might feel better.

[CAM-Gerlach]

Great suggestion @Rosuav ; this also bypasses the "and"/"or" issue I was haggling over

[AA-Turner]

Thanks all for the reviews, merged
A