Enable Team to replace defunct registry custodians when no-one else can

[frivoal]

See issue #699

---

Preview | Diff

[TallTed]

I think either of these would address what we discussed today.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed PRs to Discuss.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<plh> Topic: PRs to Discuss
<plh> Github: https://github.com//pull/790
<plh> florian: there are alternatives that I'd like feedback on
<plh> https://github.com//pull/790/files
<plh> [line 4650]
<plh> TallTed: any registry need to have multiples tables and may have multiple custodian
<plh> TallTed: see https://github.com//pull/790/files#r1369253152
<plh> TallTed: I can live with either proposal
<plh> florian: both phrasing works
<plh> ... I does make sense
<joshco> discussing comment https://github.com//pull/790/files#r1369253152
<plh> fantasai: how about "f the custodian of a registry table ..."
<plh> TallTed: it's viable but once it's discovered that any table have a custodian, it makes sense to address all at once
<plh> fantasai: let's take the shorter wording
<plh> TallTed: if it's meant to address each table at a time, you'll have to this process for each table
<plh> [some back-n-forth on wording]
<joshco> tallted: we should either cover the unusual, corner case or not
<joshco> would doing a survey to replace custodians for a given table, would this be an appropriate use of process. yes.
<plh> s/would/plh: would/
<joshco> florian: suggests simpler wording
<plh> Ted: I'm fine with "If the [=custodian=] of a [=registry table=]"
<plh> [and we'll take the rest of Ted suggestion]
<plh> [and remove the the words after unresponsive on the last line]
<plh> Resolution: merge #790 after making the tweaks