and I remark automated, because even when config creation is decentralised if a single flyte owning team is to validate all configs this defeats the entire purpose of this idea

Here are some potential details Iam thinking about on decentralization without compromising system stability… Discovery of Custom Agent ConfigMaps: • Implement a mechanism that systematically discovers and collects custom agent ConfigMaps across namespaces or predefined locations. This ensures that any new custom agent configurations are properly detected and processed. Validation of ConfigMaps: • Before applying or loading any custom agent configuration, each ConfigMap should go through an automated validation process (via webhooks or other validation tools). If a ConfigMap fails validation, it would be excluded from being applied or loaded, without affecting other valid configurations. • This ensures that invalid custom agent configurations do not propagate errors or make FlytePropeller unable to start. Aggregation and Conflict Resolution: • After validation, the valid ConfigMaps should be aggregated. This aggregation should handle potential *conflicts*—for example, if two agents have the same name or endpoint, a mechanism should resolve or flag the conflict. • This ensures that only conflict-free and valid configurations are applied, maintaining isolation between configurations and preventing a bad agent config from affecting the entire Flyte setup.