With the Forum being a project management body as opposed to a decisionmaking one, this is somewhat moot (and I feel there won't be much incentive for people to participate), but were that not the case, the Composition section stands out a bit with its long list of WMF teams vs. a single "Representative from the Independent +2s". Maybe that's just a typo, and it was meant in plural; but just in case, it might be worth pointing out that about half to a third of the contribtions to MediaWiki core come from independent contributors. (See Community metrics; the dashboard is not linking-friendly. MW core used as an example here as more comprehensive statistics are harder to get.) If we want to encompass the various areas of expertise that individual contributors represent, or the various chains of trust, a single representative wouldn't necessarily work well for those either.
Topic on Talk:Technical decision making/Flow
In that spirit, a suggestion: instead of two co-chairs representing WMF Technology and WMF Product, have one of them represent Technology+Product and the other one affiliates and individual contributors. (Having a volunteer co-chair might of course run into practical problems, but even having someone from the WMF Technical Engagement team as a delegate for non-WMF technical contributors seems like an improvement in terms of representation.)
I agree that perhaps that ought to be "representatives". This also covers the 3rd party representation qn. that @Tgr raised separately.
Updated to indicate to make plural