I think people need to be very careful because, reading this, a lot of people are mixing up equality and diversity for the sake of diversity.
Equality is offering everyone the same opportunity, regardless of sex, race, age or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean you will get equal representation across the board because equality is based on merit and achievement. It gives everyone a fair chance because sex, race, age or whatever are not part of the process, only what the person can do or has done. Rarely will this give equal representation, but it ensures everyone is treated the same way.
Diversity for the sake of diversity throws merit out the window and selects people based on their sex, race, age or whatever to tick a box, meaning people who may be more suitable are left out, just because they don't fill the demographic that we're looking for. In this instance, if you're insisting on more woman just because of "diversity", you're basically implying women aren't good enough at the job, but put them in anyway because they tick a box. "Women can't compete on merit, so you have to include them" Sexist bullshit. Women are just as capable.
So, I'm throwing this back at the publications. If women aren't being represented, are they getting an equal shot in the jobs at these publications or are they being considered as equal when things like this come up? If there's less women in game journalism, what is the reason? Are these publications basically "boy's only clubs" and getting a foot hold as a woman is difficult? There's no issue with the panal selection process, nor a problem with how it turned out, because most of these publications seem to have much larger male representation to start with and, more dangerously, do these publications only hire a handful of women to tick those boxes rather than seeing them as equals? That's a much more major concern, for me, than some awards show panal. Even Polygon only changed when they realised it was mostly men, despite sending a man in the first instance.