WRT observations: I see the same. Maybe we should look into some solutions to these. Something like freezing AVW at the start of a poll for that poll. For the time being I think AVW still provides a better metric than TVW because...

I think that AVW already does what you suggest we do with TVW. AVW ignores all destroyed coins and coins in cold storage. It also ignores coins and magnitude in the pool (which cannot vote on the blockchain). Could be mistaken.

Green WAS on whatever is closest to reality and practical. I'm not sure on the difference between server_status page or greylist site data.

When removing a project from the whitelist, it makes sense to me that there is an attempt to contact the admin so they have the opportunity to present their case or fix any issues. A project removal proposal that doesn't do this should be invalid for a few reasons, two major being:

1. At least trying to reach out is just a nice thing to do
2. It presents a barrier to entry for polls -- I, the user, can now ignore any old poll about removing a project unless it demonstrates that it is following the steps (responsibility and commitment). This sort of thing will probably come in handy down the road.

Regarding onus: Generally belongs to the actor and not recipient. In context, we're talking about the act of proposing whitelist removal, not retention. If someone is going to seriously poll to remove a project, they should reach out first, if only to let them know.

I'm not sure how ultimatums to BOINC projects or flame-wars relate to this proposal. I think you might be talking about the problems of representation and outreach/contact, which have solutions tangent to this proposal, but I'm not sure.

Could you explain more on how this proposal limits the rights of someone to make a poll? That's definitely not the intent.