Update CODEOWNERS with the broader team

[justinsb]

No description provided.

[bgrant0607]

It seems like the directories covered in the file are pretty arbitrary. Do we need them all? Are there some that are missing?

Also, I think all listed owners are spammed for reviews on PRs that touch those directories. I'd be happy not to be spammed on anything other than the site. :-)

[justinsb]

So the original intent of the directories was that...

• There would be one approver / one voice for all docs. A few packages referenced from the docs would also have tighter control.
• Schema changes would get specially checked
• Tests that enforce the function contract would get specially checked.

I'm proposing that we adopt more of a broader web of trust here, so all directories have the same permissions; given that I think it's less important about the directory coverage, but I do need to check about what happens to non-covered directories.

However, I ack that it is annoying if you get spammed. i.e. we're not just giving people permissions, we're also destroying their email. I'll set you specifically as only on the docs site if you like @bgrant0607 , and if anyone else wants to opt out, please LMK.