Jose, I disagree. I think there "must" be a result announced post adjournment, so I think we'll see that very soon, and I don't think one can predict the outcome just yet based on the timing here.
Some other thoughts:
As there is no "voting day" to come in and vote and certain people, myself included, missed the initial opportunity because we slacked off, the board is giving us more time to vote on matters. So I have no problem at all extending the voting timeline.
As for "certain items only being extended because they didn't pass"?
Because they want/need things to pass, it only makes sense for them to give more time to allow passage. If they didn't want/need things to pass, they wouldn't have the vote in the first place. So it's illogical to think "oh it's not fair/ethical/legal" when it's the people who are requesting action be taken to adopt change to not take every action possible to affect such change. It's ethical, that's subjective. It's Legal, or they wouldn't be doing it. It's fair? It's capitalism.
I think we can fall back onto the usual "long thesis" here. If you are long, you trust in the company. You trust in the CEO, and the team to make the right decisions for the best interest of the company and the shareholders. If I'm letting a company use my hard earned money by investing in it, then I generally have some level of trust in them. I expect basic fiduciary responsibility to be adhered to. In that respect, I expect any items that come up to a vote, to generally pass. The voting as I see it is more of a show of confidence in the company rather a actual vote for specifics. As you remember last years plan failed, and this year they "renegotiated" down a significant amount and it passed handily.
So when I see something fail, I think people "aren't happy" more than they really don't like certain propositions "X, Y and Z" on the ballot and this all is a direct consequence of the share price. If the SP was over 7$, I think they could have probably passed a much stronger incentive plan and anything else on top of it for that matter.
Drugman, that said, with most longs trusting the company is making the right moves- if they ask for something, they would usually get it with longs voting to pass the initiatives. Shorts don't vote, people who have no position don't either. So when I see a vote get adjourned, it's because they are looking simply "for more votes" which again, are longs, and again, generally vote in favor of the propositions.
Even if they gave the other already passed initiatives more time, "to fail" as you say you think would be more fair, (which would be anti-productive to the company's goals if we assume passage is in the best interest of the company), the later votes would probably be in the same percentages-mostly slanted towards passage. There's just no point in letting an already passed vote continue voting- when more votes simply means more "passage" votes.
My thoughts are simple- more votes simply means more longs voting in the affirmative.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
