This opinion is just my own, I’m not speaking on behalf of Balancer Labs:
The votes that made this outcome were all added last minute by wallets that are unequivocally owned by Humpy. Just to make clear, this was a decision made by a single actor who deservedly acquired a lot of voting power and I’m not questioning the outcome of that snapshot vote. But that doesn’t change the fact that it IS a single actor voting against almost everyone (if not everyone) else in the community.
Aura and other veBAL derivative protocols have sovereignty to decide how to use their veBAL. If they decided to use it in full, the same way Tetu does, IMO Balancer governance should not boycott it. The situation would have been a lot different if Aura did not immediately suggest to NOT double count their own votes. It’s clear that the intention has always been to simply change the way Aura votes, not to double count votes or cheat.
If the concern by Humpy was really to avoid double counting they could have simply voted in favor or not voted at all (given the quorum had already been largely hit). If they voted against the solution of double counting Aura votes I personally would see absolutely no foul play if Aura did end up double voting, which would be 100% a consequence of BIP 112 being voted down by Humpy.
If Humpy sees double counting as a problem (and they should, as does everyone else in the community) then what would make sense for me is for them to ask to revote BIP-112 and this time vote aligned with their interest of avoiding double votes. I am not a lawyer but can hardly see a court case if Aura just used the veBAL that they have in the Aura smart contracts as this doesn’t break any rules. If Humpy thinks it does I’d be genuinely curious to see when these have been agreed upon by governance and happy to change my mind.