Renamed Vault functions and events with Ousd in them

[naddison36]

This is an optional addition to the PR #1627 that refactors the vaults

It does more more of the items in #1533
Specifically, it covers removing Ousd from function names and events.

• setOusdMetaStrategy -> setMetaStrategy
• setNetOusdMintForStrategyThreshold -> setNetMintForStrategyThreshold
• OusdMetaStrategyUpdated -> MetaStrategyUpdated
• NetOusdMintForStrategyThresholdChanged -> NetMintForStrategyThresholdChanged

The two functions and corresponding events are only used by the governor so breaking the ABI is not such a big deal

[shahthepro]

We don't plan to use this for OETH though right? This is exclusive to OUSDMetStrategy contract. the curve AMO uses mintForStrategy I believe

[naddison36]

It currently is on the OETHVaultAdmin hence the reason for are trying to clean it up.

There may be a better way of doing this. eg

1. Move these OUSD specific functions to an OUSD Vault implementation contract
2. Change the OUSD strategies to use the more generic functions.

Both sound like a bigger change for another day.

[DanielVF]

I'd rather do these changes, later after the current OETH vault deploy

[sparrowDom]

@naddison36 do we want to pair this PR with deployment of some other Vault functionality? So we don't kick off the Vault deploys just for the naming changes?

[sparrowDom]

Maybe it'b be cool to have a list of PRs that are waiting to join some other more impactful functionality to be deployed

[naddison36]

For the OETH Vault, I'd say it's best to pair with something else.
For the OUSD Vault, we need to decide if we include with 052_upgrade_ousd_vault_harvester or do after. I'm not set on either way but I'd lean toward doing after so both OETH and OUSD are on the same codebase.

[sparrowDom]

Yes agreed, rolling them out for both protocols simultaneously would be nice - in respect of not complicating our environments and mental load.