Introduce rosaControlPlane for managed kubernetes

[enxebre]

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

This introduces support ROSA analogous to the EKS implementation.

This branch introduces a new ROSAControlPlane CRD and controller which enables functional ROSA Cluster creation with the proper yaml definition. We plan to iterate and follow up to flesh out design and implementation for the API, cluster deletion, day 2 changes, machine management via rosaMachinePools, etc.
This first iteration is meant to be little more than a starting common ground for collaboration.

Let's discuss on next community meeting next steps.

cc @vincepri @richardcase

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist:

• squashed commits
• includes documentation
• adds unit tests
• adds or updates e2e tests

Release note:

[k8s-ci-robot]

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[enxebre]

Planning to bring this up in next community call Mon 3 Jul

[enxebre]

Planning to bring this up in next community call Mon 3 Jul

There's no meeting today, so 10Jul.

[vincepri]

@enxebre Can you rebase?

[richardcase]

/milestone v2.3.0

[Ankitasw]

Shall this be an experimental feature first and then be graduated?
If yes, then it would require a bit of refactoring, as we follow for exp APIs and controllers.

[richardcase]

Shall this be an experimental feature first and then be graduated? If yes, then it would require a bit of refactoring, as we follow for exp APIs and controllers.

Good point @Ankitasw . Yes i think we do need to sit this behind a feature flag initially like we did when we added other significant new features.

[enxebre]

Makes sense, I'll account for it while rebasing

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from enxebre. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[enxebre]

Rebased, put behind feature gate and started to gather follow ups here #4431

[muraee]

it would be good if we can add an OWNER file or something to allow us to approve PRs related to the ROSA provider without needing to bother the maintainers every time.
cc @richardcase @Ankitasw thoughts?

[prometherion]

Shouldn't be these resources in lowercase?

[vincepri]

it would be good if we can add an OWNER file or something to allow us to approve PRs related to the ROSA provider without needing to bother the maintainers every time. cc @richardcase @Ankitasw thoughts?

Adding a sub-owner file sounds good to me, although I'd generally prefer a steady stream of contribution/reviews before we add approver rights.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[Ankitasw]

In favor of #4453