add maintainers rules and list

The rules referenced containerd and other projects

Signed-off-by: Wang Xu <gnawux@gmail.com>

Author: gnawux

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# Contributing
+
+Contributions should be made via pull requests. Pull requests will be reviewed
+by one or more maintainers and merged when acceptable.
+
+This project is in an early state, making the impact of contributions much
+greater than at other stages. In this respect, it is important to consider any
+changes or additions for their future impact more so than their current impact.
+
+## Successful Changes
+
+We ask that before contributing, please make the effort to coordinate with the
+maintainers of the project before submitting large or high impact PRs. This
+will prevent you from doing extra work that may or may not be merged.
+
+PRs that are just submitted without any prior communication will likely be
+summarily closed.
+
+While pull requests are the methodology for submitting changes to code, changes
+are much more likely to be accepted if they are accompanied by additional
+engineering work. While we don't define this explicitly, most of these goals
+are accomplished through communication of the design goals and subsequent
+solutions. Often times, it helps to first state the problem before presenting
+solutions.
+
+Typically, the best methods of accomplishing this are to submit an issue,
+stating the problem. This issue can include a problem statement and a
+checklist with requirements. If solutions are proposed, alternatives should be
+listed and eliminated. Even if the criteria for elimination of a solution is
+frivolous, say so.
+
+Larger changes typically work best with design documents, similar to those found
+in `design/`. These are focused on providing context to the design at the time
+the feature was conceived and can inform future documentation contributions.
+
+## Commit Messages
+
+There are times for one line commit messages and this is not one of them.
+Commit messages should follow best practices, including explaining the context
+of the problem and how it was solved, including in caveats or follow up changes
+required. They should tell the story of the change and provide readers
+understanding of what led to it.
+
+If you're lost about what this even means, please see [How to Write a Git
+Commit Message](http://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/) for a start.
+
+In practice, the best approach to maintaining a nice commit message is to
+leverage a `git add -p` and `git commit --amend` to formulate a solid
+changeset. This allows one to piece together a change, as information becomes
+available.
+
+If you squash a series of commits, don't just submit that. Re-write the commit
+message, as if the series of commits was a single stroke of brilliance.
+
+That said, there is no requirement to have a single commit for a PR, as long as
+each commit tells the story. For example, if there is a feature that requires a
+package, it might make sense to have the package in a separate commit then have
+a subsequent commit that uses it.
+
+Remember, you're telling part of the story with the commit message. Don't make
+your chapter weird.
+
+## Sign your work
+
+The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch. Your
+signature certifies that you wrote the patch or otherwise have the right to pass
+it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify
+the below (from [developercertificate.org](http://developercertificate.org/)):
+
+```
+Developer Certificate of Origin
+Version 1.1
+
+Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
+660 York Street, Suite 102,
+San Francisco, CA 94110 USA
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
+license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
+
+By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
+
+(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
+    have the right to submit it under the open source license
+    indicated in the file; or
+
+(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
+    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
+    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
+    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
+    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
+    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
+    in the file; or
+
+(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
+    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
+    it.
+
+(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
+    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
+    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
+    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
+    this project or the open source license(s) involved.
+```
+
+Then you just add a line to every git commit message:
+
+    Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@email.com>
+
+Use your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
+
+If you set your `user.name` and `user.email` git configs, you can sign your
+commit automatically with `git commit -s`.
+
+### Project maintainers
+
+The runV maintainers will be the ones accepting or rejecting any pull request. 
+They are listed in the OWNERS files, and there can be one OWNERS file per directory.
+
+The OWNERS files split maintainership into 2 categories: reviewers and approvers. 
+All approvers also belong to the reviewers list and there must be at least one 
+approval from one member of each list for a pull request to be merged.
+
+Since approvers are also reviewers, they technically can approve a pull request 
+without getting another reviewer's approval. However, it is their due diligence 
+to rely on reviewers and should use their approval power only in very specific cases.

OWNERS

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+reviewers:
+- feiskyer
+- WeiZhang555
+
+approvers:
+- gnawux
+- laijs
+- gao-feng
+- bergwolf