Given that the fork happened for a reason (namely, Oracle wants the development process of OpenOffice to be more proprietary), it's pretty much inevitable that there will be two OpenOffice flavors rather than one. For the product itself, it makes much sense to have people on both boards because there is the common interest of maintaining basic compatibility between those two versions.

If you look at it in terms of commercialization - which of course is the more important reason why StarDivision/Sun/Oracle pays developers to work on OpenOffice - then of course you see a conflict of interest there because one half wants to make money off the thing and the other half wants an open-source ecosystem.

Since Sun accepted only contributions with copyright assignment, Oracle could also go all the way and turn OpenOffice back to the proprietary development model that StarOffice had before the Sun acquisition. Questioning the business sense of Sun turning StarOffice into OpenOffice, however, should also be accompanied by the question why OpenOffice is more popular than StarOffice - which was, back then a bit better-known than the handful of other non-Microsoft office suites (Applix, SoftMaker), but by no means the only player.

I think it's fair game to ask Oracle to be honest and either continue the standard of community participation that they had or just drop the whole pretense of openness altogether and be honest about the new OracleOffice, just as it is fair game for the now-Oracle StarOffice people to want to keep the brand they built.

Probably the whole brouhaha will die down within the next year and someone will suggest having and all-sorts-of-Office working group where OracleOffice and LibreOffice people will discuss things without any suggested or experienced conflict of interest.