Limiting the influence of the community to spectate and feedback seems less than I would expect. If community involvement in governance is to be improved, it needs to be seen to make a difference. OpenStack has ambassadors (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Community/AmbassadorProgram) and elections to the 1/3 of the board from the community. This is probably too heavy for CentOS but some form of community representation with a genuine voice in governance would seem reasonable for an open source project.
However, with the board rules as defined in http://www.CentOS.org/about/governance/joining-the-project/, it is difficult for someone who is a user of CentOS as opposed to a developer to meet the merit criteria. The current CentOS board membership would benefit from more diversity and different outlooks to help identify changes which need further community input such as this one.
The challenge here is to find the appropriate people to help since many will be paid for delivering value to their companies rather than being paid to work on CentOS. Given their limited time, I do not feel that requiring operators to follow a development list is the right solution to encourage more interaction.