Revoke may not be the legally correct word to use, but it's an informal blog post and not a legal document, and what they intended to say is clear enough.
I think that your understanding of how the licensure works is a bit off. Open source software is still individually licensed to everyone. The copyright holder retains copyright, and can terminate an individual's rights under the license as long as the license includes a termination clause. Which the AGPL does.
I did not take termination into account in the second paragraph. I was referring to AGPL being addressed to anyone instead of a specific party. This means that a full revocation of the license would revoke it from everyone, even though that's not possible with AGPL. This does not apply to terminating licensees as you mentioned which appears to be what they mean and is possible under condition.
But because of the lack of a violation a permanent termination in 30 days would still be invalid.
Well, be careful there, too. "Revoke" means something specific in contract law. It sounds from the way you're talking that you're trying to use a more everyday definition of the term to understand this contract.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
Revoke may not be the legally correct word to use, but it's an informal blog post and not a legal document, and what they intended to say is clear enough.
I think that your understanding of how the licensure works is a bit off. Open source software is still individually licensed to everyone. The copyright holder retains copyright, and can terminate an individual's rights under the license as long as the license includes a termination clause. Which the AGPL does.