I think this repo should have a bit more structure/procedures

Hi, thank you for maintaining shared infrastructure in the CNCF.

We are hitting issues around disk space with the default GHA runners, and I went to investigate the state of the CNCF provided runners - see https://github.com/bootc-dev/bootc/pull/2306

I think that will work for us.

However, the first thing that I found a bit of a minor problem is that the naming of the runners like `cncf-ubuntu-8-32-x86` replicates a problem from stock Github runners - it's *missing the operating system major version* which is a very relevant thing.

Still to this day, `ubuntu-latest` on Github is not latest, because they can't change it because it would break too many things (see https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10636 )

It seems to be that "ubuntu" here is really ubuntu-24.04 - which is fine, however, it's already 2026...and from their side 26.04 is already out...

---

OK so the next thing I went to do is find the pull request that introduced these runners...and then (my agent) noticed there wasn't a pull request at all - https://github.com/cncf/automation/commit/b785890 AFAICS just got directly pushed to main.

I think this repository should change to meet basic guidelines:

- All changes require a pull request
- All changes require a reviewer
- (optional but a really good idea) All changes have an AI review by default

I think those of us who are maintaining projects in the CNCF could probably get pinged periodically to review PRs here if that was helpful.

Start by reviewing commit b785890, the linked bootc pull request, and the referenced GitHub runner issue to understand the current runner naming and change process. Define the scope for versioned runner names and mandatory pull requests, reviewers, and optional AI review; done requires an agreed implementation path and maintainer approval.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.