The retrospective says this:
What this election exposed was the need for the organization to also assess whether candidates were fully eligible to run and prepared to be seated on the board before voting begins. This is something we will add to the election timeline next year.
This seems an oblique reference to the fact that a last minute demand was made which amounted to changing the rules of the game during play, which Maffuli admitted in so many words in this telling thread.
What the retrospective post does not detail is how this “need to assess wether candidates are eligible to run” was discovered somehow when voting was already under way. To an onlooker without a direct stake in this, it looks suspiciously like meddling with procedures in order to steer outcomes. I do not utter this suspicion lightly; I cannot think of a good faith interpretation especially given OSI’s conspicuous silence on precisely this point. I would be happy to be proven wrong of course.
So in response to the question in the post, what improvements I would want to see, I think more transparency and, dare I say it, openness (e.g. about vote counts and lost/discarded votes) would be great.