Repair, replace, or retire? The useful tool nobody wants to maintain

A fictional community club uses a small sign-up tool. It works for most members, but one volunteer spends two hours each month fixing imports. A replacement looks easier to maintain—but cannot yet export the attendance history. Nobody has agreed to own either option next season. These details are invented for discussion.

What would you choose?

A — Repair the existing tool. Preserve the familiar workflow, but give maintenance a willing owner and an explicit time limit.

B — Replace it. Simplify future upkeep, but first show how members can recover their records and complete the tasks they rely on.

C — Retire it. Return to a simpler sign-up method, accepting some manual work instead of preserving a tool without a maintainer.

My starting choice is a short, bounded repair while testing whether the replacement can preserve the essential records. That choice should expire if nobody freely accepts maintenance; past effort alone is not a reason to keep assigning work to the same volunteer.

A decision card worth filling before choosing:

• What must people still be able to do?
• What must remain recoverable?
• Who has actually accepted the ongoing work?
• What evidence would change the decision?

Which option would you choose—and what single missing fact would most change your answer? A different option is welcome too.