I'm not sure whether I agree. Let's continue (and increase) the pedantry.
(1) The intention of the rules (especially rule 109) is that everyone should have a chance to vote "No". So when only considering intentions, and not the specific text, I think the voting should continue.
(2) But this wouldn't be Nomic when only considering intentions. What do the rules actually say? Rule 109 says that the vote should be unanimous among the eligible voters. What is an eligible voter? Well, the current ruleset doesn't define it (
as I've noted earlier (bottom of the post)). So what does rule 109 actually say? The only two reasonable options to me see (a) nothing, or (b) consider it as if everyone is an eligible voter. I'm inclined to say "(b)", because we're voting all the time, and we're all allowed to vote, so when invoking the definition on eligible, it seems reasonable to call us all eligible voters.
But you may say "Aha! Rule 334 does say explicitly that the players who didn't vote are
not eligible voters. So we do (did?) have a unanimous vote among eligible voters." But rule 334 says this
only when 60 hours have been passed. It doesn't say so in this case. So some (presumably) eligible voters have not voted yet, hence I think we're still in the voting state.
(3) I certainly
want this vote to pass. But if someone disagrees with the proposal, I'm don't want it to pass in a maybe-not-completely-legal way.