Having been on a paper review board, the selection process is essentially credentialism for credentialism’s sake. Anyone who’s done a paper or two is deemed to be qualified, and as it’s unpaid, uncredited bonus work on top of your day job, the slots aren’t competed for very hard.

I would say the primary difference between a conference peer review board and HN is that the author is obliged to respond to the reviewers on the board. I would not say there’s any particular difference in qualifications.