I disagree with these comments. It is certainly true that we have no idea how the seated people would have fared at the convention. It is also true, though, that we do know how the other candidates fared - they didn't receive a majority in an approval voting context. I would agree with Starchild if we were using some system where the ability of a delegate to voice support for candidates is limited. However, in approval voting, I see only two meanings to failing to vote for a person: disapproval, and having no idea who the person is (or something similar). People generally disapprove of putting people on about whom they know nothing, and so that's a sort of disapproval, too.
It's true that there is a problem of active vs. passive bias here - I would prefer that we used disapproval voting, which also gives a more sensible meaning to later rounds of balloting.
Similarly to Starchild, my remarks are not reflective of any political preference, as the next 4 highest vote-getters seem to me to be very qualified for the JC.
By the way, I also don't agree with the implied statement that none of the non-majority candidates should be seated. The bylaws are quite clear here, both in the case of the LNC and of the JC, in assigning the task in an open manner to the existing members. The delegates stated that they wished for those people to exercise this power when they adopted the bylaws as they exist. Those doing the appointing should consider the candidates who did not receive a majority, as well as anyone they think is qualified. If appointing non-majority candidates, though, they should not say they are honoring the will of the delegates, but rather should say "these are the people we have chosen," the same as they would in any other circumstance. When a vacancy exists outside of the convention, it is their choice and their responsibility, regardless of what mechanism they might choose to use.
It is not the case, either, that there are any clear customs here. The LNC used that process to seat at-large members on Monday, but did not use it to fill officer vacancies in past terms, for example. Arguably, it would make more sense for officer vacancies because there is a limit to votes cast by each delegate. I think it is rather contradictory, though, to claim that the will of the delegates is to seat people who were approved of by less than half of the delegates voting.