It's not clear the exact role and "powers" of the foundation over and above their own management/governance. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES is a bit vague. As far as I can tell, removing the Foundation-specific things (like "advancement of the foundation", reviewing the effectiveness of the foundation, etc.), this leaves "serve the interests and requirements of the .NET community", "Mentor open source projects", "Review submissions from community groups with respect to issues pertaining to understanding, sensitivity, and attitudes towards open source and .NET", "determine the needs of the community".
The last duty is fairly straightforward and should be as vague to allow broadening over time. But the other seems really unactionable and certainly unverifiable. i.e. how can anyone evaluate that the members of the board are fulfilling their duties (over and above keeping the foundation alive)?
I'd suggest the duties and responsibilities be be made unambiguous and verifiable. I'd also suggest a clear separation between duties with respect to the foundation itself and those duties with respect to the community it serves. If those duties and responsibilities are to change much, prioritization and feasibility should also be considered (re: feasibility, if the only requirement of members is to be present at 4 of the 12 meetings, is it feasible to also require they mentor the community, etc.)