AFAICT they call it a success because the users were happy with the quality of service, and close it because noone wants to fund it. If that reading is correct,

AFAICT they call it a success because the users were happy with the quality of service, and close it because noone wants to fund it. If that reading is correct, then the 40 are happy to use a server paid for out of someone else's budget and think the admin has done a good job, but don't want to become the new admin or pay for running the server. It reminds me of many stories of open source projects: Happy users — who don't want to pay or take over the work.