The point I was making is that in DAOs built by developers, code is an expression of values/law/rules and the purpose of this governance process is to codify how the protocol operates. The words in a governance forum post or snapshot provide color and context, but the code and/or specifications of on-chain(or in this case off-chain) actions to be taken also tells a story and has meaning of its own.
This statement was taken out of context. The rest of my post further concludes that it was implied in all prior governance that it was up to Aura to determine how they wanted their veBAL votes to be handed and the lack any conversation, code, or other efforts to blacklist Aura from voting directly with the veBAL in the VoterProxy or from delegating said veBAL to be voted with demonstrated the intent to give Aura autonomy over how it votes with its veBAL.