Mention concerns for "the first person who asks" for ownership transfer

[Marcono1234]

See #7173
And see also the npm event-stream incident.

Any feedback, especially regarding wording, is appreciated!

(CC @carols10cents since you apparently proposed adding this section in #5216)

[Marcono1234]

In case this pull request is accepted in some form, should rust-lang/rfcs#3463 then be updated as well?

[Turbo87]

👋 we discussed this PR in the crates.io team meeting today. it seems like this paragraph applies to maintainer invitations in general, and not just to these specific situations where someone reserved a crate name and doesn't need it anymore.

since rust-lang/rfcs#3463 is now in final comment period and will hopefully be merged our suggestion is to delay this PR until we've integrated that policy update, and then we can re-evaluate where this paragraph would make most sense. does that sound good to you?

[Marcono1234]

it seems like this paragraph applies to maintainer invitations in general, and not just to these specific situations where someone reserved a crate name and doesn't need it anymore

Do you mean the new paragraph I added. Yes, I guess you are right. But as seen with https://crates.io/crates/wgpu-noboiler, it appears users might also apply "How can I delete a crate I own from the registry?" in other situations, where the crate was not just used to reserve the name. That was why I though this new paragraph was needed for this section the most.

delay this PR until we've integrated that policy update, and then we can re-evaluate where this paragraph would make most sense. does that sound good to you?

Yes that is completely fine for me, thanks also for discussing this PR!

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #7496) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[Marcono1234]

Thanks a lot @Turbo87 for updating this pull request and including the warning in the policies!