For each application, the yay or nay of each board member is recorded. If and when, later, the board reaches a consensus on whether that application should have been approved, this consensus is recorded as well. The result is that each board member accumulates a score.

Wait a minute here - how is consensus reached here? Say I voted nay on an application, so it was rejected, because a (weighted) majority voted nay too.

1) How are we supposed to figure out after the fact whether we should have voted "aye" on the application? (Barring easy cases like "the exact same application was then accepted by another foundation and turned into a huge success".)

2) If the consensus turned out that "aye" was the correct answer, I would in effect lose power, right? So it would be in my interest that the consensus does not, turn out to be "aye", so it's in my interest to vote "nay" during the consensus, or delay it, etc. - and the same goes for the majority who voted "nay" in the first place, which makes a consensus that the majority was wrong unlikely in many ambiguous cases.