Most of them could be found in the senate, or in the administration of Odoacer's Consulship.

Flavius Odoacer, the de facto leader of the Foederati or ethnic "Barbarians" fighting for Rome (who made up most of the army), deposed the last Emperor Romulus Augustulus when he lost the army's favor. Odoacer then didn't call himself Emperor, but sent the imperial paraphernalia to Constantinople and asked to be recognized as "Consul", keeping all of the functions of the Roman Administration in Italy intact (understandable, Flavius Odoacer as was so romanized historians aren't sure which "Barbarian" ethnic group he belonged to). He initially played lip service to the pervious emperor Julius Nepos, minting coinage in his name, but may have been involved in the plot whereby he was murdered. Regardless, after the murder of Julius Nepos, Odoacer asked to be given the title of Patrician by the Eastern Emperor, and be recognized as the ruler of Italy under the wing of a single Roman Emperor in Costantinople.

The Eastern Emperor Zeno, however, had his own issues to deal with involving "Barbarian Generals", namely involving two Ostrogoths, both confusingly named Theodoric (this in addition to social, religious, and political unrest in his own half of the empire).

Although the Ostrogoths had been given lands in Pannonia in exchange for the defense of the upper Danube, Zeno came to the conclusion that the Ostrogoths were more trouble than they were worth (fighting with him, fighting with each other, and in a general sense just being another annoying thing to have to deal with) so he convinced them to go conquer Italy. This way, they would stop annoying him, and he could also get rid of Odoacer, at this point another potential opponent.

Theodoric the Amal, King of the Ostrogoths, had been raised in Constantinople. His people were largely Romanized, having lived within the Eastern Empire's borders for centuries. When he defeated Odoacer and set up the first Kingdom of Italy, he did his utmost to further maintain the Roman institutions, law, and judicial system. However, he did not rule from Rome, rather, he ruled from Ravenna, seaside city conveniently defended by swampy surroundings, and easily supplied by ship.

This first Kingdom of Italy lasted to the sixth century. Starting from 535, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian attacked the Kingdom of Italy, taking advantage of infighting among the Romano-Gothic ruling class, deposing the last king of Italy in 553 and consecrating control over Italy (despite towards the end, the Kingdom of Italy had rallied around Totilla, charismatic, fair, just and politically able king. Unfortunately, Totilla was slain in battle, and his reforms did too little, too late).

However, the Byzantine Empire had a chronic manpower problem, and lost Italy in less than a generation. Although Justinian was definitely a great wartime politician (who was particularly good at picking the right man for the right job), his conquests stretched Byzantium's resources too far, and even sympathetic chronicles criticize him for being unable to defend his conquests.

So the decline of "Roman-ness" of Italian society was much to gradual for anyone to hide from it.

What about outside of Rome? Well, u/bitparity wrote a great answer on that which I've now cited for the second time today:

In the post-Roman era, "Roman" meant an equally confusing myriad of definitions. In Spain and Gaul, it meant regional aristocrat of ex-Roman areas. In Italy and to the Arabs it meant someone under the authority of the Byzantine Empire. In the late empire, there was a connotation of Roman as specifically non-barbarian soldiers, rather than civilians. And in other contexts, Roman simply meant "Christian". The reason for this, is because of the varying speed and the "greyness" of the disappearance of the Roman imperial authority. In the areas where it was slowest, there was no "subjugation" of Roman identity. That identity simply changed and the meaning of that word changed to mean something else. In the areas where the change was the fastest, well, the Romans still existed as an opposing state. Those who were previously Romans (like say under the Arabs) formed alternate regional identities with the disappearance of the "Roman Empire" (disappearance being the fracturing of the supra-regional mediterranean wide entity). You have to keep in mind too that Roman identity was not a "biological" identity, akin to how we view now ethnicity. It was a more "constitutional" one. Meaning it was a cultural identity that could be adopted. Once the need for that identity disappears (because the hegemonic cultural framework is gone), the identity goes with it. In its stead, identity becomes local. Thus people who were clearly descended from Romans merged with the identities of their new overlords. Because biological "ethnicity" was not a barrier to most of these new ruling groups, conversion to the new identity was a mostly voluntary process to get closer to the power and prestige of the new leadership.