Review Charm for MetalLB

Looking good @addyess @varshigupta. Just a few minor details:

Review item Review criteria Evidence / notes
Charmhub.io charm detail page The overall charmhub.io appearance looks good, which means: * The name complies with the naming guidelines. * The publisher is identified. * The links are provided. * The documentation looks reasonable. Change “Homepage” link to operator website (github, not launchpad); a single tutorial is broken into multiple pages, which is incorrect? On github project page, add a link back to charmhub.io project page.
Source repository Link to source repository accessible by reviewer PASS
Coding conventions A reasonable styleguide is enforced in tox.ini/similar and in CI/CD. In metadata.yaml: (1) “tags” is obsolete and can be removed; (2) “assumes k8s-api” seems wrong, as it is a workloadless & machine charm; (3) this is a k8s charm so it should be named metallb-k8s and the repo metallb-k8s-operator.
Release automation implementation CI auto releases charm to edge on merge. PASS
Unit tests implementation Unit tests are run in CI, pass, have at least 50% coverage, and their results are available to the reviewer. PASS
Integration tests implemented Integration tests for installation, usage and relations are run in CI, pass, and their results are available to the reviewer. PASS
Documentation for usage A usage doc exists separate from README.md. PASS
Documentation for contributing A contributing doc (e.g. CONTRIBUTING.md) exists. PASS
Licensing statement LICENCE is clearly available to potential users. PASS