> Is the expectation that someone could squat (as per the new channel description) a channel for all perpetuity, even if they no longer participate on the platf

> Is the expectation that someone could squat (as per the new channel description) a channel for all perpetuity, even if they no longer participate on the platform? I really think that is the expectation. I can see reasonable exceptions for specific important channels, where someone abandons an active channel that is a valuable community resource and it is transferred to another caretaker who has some sort of mandate from the community. Even that could be seen as a bit sketchy, imo, and there is precedent for just choosing another channel name rather than going against community norms. In this case, I think it's hard to argue that the channel just had to continue to function and so protocol had to be breached. The raised eyebrows this is getting are justified, imo.