Add info about expectations of OBO Operations members

[nlharris]

As discussed during today's OBO Ops call, we need clearer documentation about what is expected of active OBO Operations Committee members. This info can be added to https://obofoundry.org/docs/NewOBOFC.html, which currently has the text

the various duties expected from members (e.g. chairing calls, addressing issues on GitHub, joining a working group)
but these duties need to be explained in more detail. This list should also include being part of the ontology review rotation.

The ontology review rotation needs to be documented (probably on https://obofoundry.org/docs/SOP.html, or, if this documentation already exists elsewhere, we can link to it from that page and also from NewOBOFC).

In the ontology review rotation, active OBO Ops members are designated in turn to lead the review OR, if they are unqualified or unable to review, to find someone else appropriate who agrees to do the review. (QUESTION: does the other reviewer have to be part of the OBO Ops Committee?)

When a new ontology comes in for review, someone who's not next on the rotation can volunteer to do the review if they wish; if no one volunteers, it's the responsibility of the next person on the rotation.

Note that agreeing to review an ontology implies that you do not have a conflict of interest (COI). (That should be added to the documentation)

[nlharris]

https://obofoundry.org/docs/NewOBOFC.html should also point to http://obofoundry.org/roles/