Change how the Chairing of the Council is determined

As per resolution of the AB on 2019-06-17.

Closes #277

index.bs

@@ -1276,30 +1276,28 @@ Recording and Reporting Formal Objections</h4>
 	to the [=W3C Council=].
 
 	The <dfn>W3C Council</dfn> consists of the following,
-	with the exception of any who recuse themselves:
-	* the [=CEO=], who serves as the <dfn>Chair of the W3C Council</dfn>
+	with the exception of any who [=recuse=] themselves:
+	* the [=CEO=]
 	* the members of the [=Advisory Board=]
 	* the members of the [=Technical Architecture Group=]
 
-	A recusal is required for any of these
+	A <dfn lt="recusal | recuse | recuses">recusal</dfn> is required for any of these
 	directly involved in the matter of the [=Formal Objection=]
 	(e.g. that they are a chair, and it is their decision that is in question,
 	or they are the individual who registered the [=Formal Objection=]);
 	other members may recuse themselves if they feel there could be a reasonable perception that they are directly involved.
-	If the [=CEO=] recuses themself,
-	they may nominate another member of the W3C management to serve in their place.
 
-	Issue(w3c/w3process#277): If the CEO needs to recuse themself,
-	they are probably not the best person to pick the alternate chair.
-	As an alternative, in case of CEO recusal,
-	the [=W3C Council=] could pick its own chair
-	by instant-runoff voting.
+	The CEO appoints the <dfn>Chair of the W3C Council</dfn>,
+	with the advice of the rest of the Council.
+	This <em class=rfc2919>may</em> be the CEO themself,
+	unless the CEO [=recuses=],
+	in which case they <em class=rfc2119>must</em> find an alternative chair.
 
 	Issue(w3c/w3process#278): Fuzzy criteria for recusal are problematic:
 	individual with only tangential involvement in the matter,
 	or even with no real involvement at all in the matter,
 	could be pressured into recursing themselves.
-	Conversely, over-assertive individuals may fail to recuse themselves even when it would be appropriate.
+	Conversely, over-assertive individuals may fail to [=recuse=] themselves even when it would be appropriate.
 	We may instead want to make a strict and non ambiguous criteria.
 	It is also unclear how useful it is to require recusal from the person raising the objection,
 	since that can easily be circumvented by asking someone else to file the objection on one's behalf.