No. Absolutely not. Bitcoin exchanges should absolutely positivity be under very close scrutiny by their customers (stakeholders). Those customers should take personal responsibility for what they do with they money and where they place it.
Therefore i am convinced it would be wrong to not address the aspect of transaction/investment security. It would make Bitcoins unsafe for the majority of people.
Just in case I did not make myself clear enough above: The Bitcoin foundation should not regulate Bitcoin exchanges. Period.
However: If the foundation chooses to endorse and promote exchanges, like they did with MtGox, then in that case they really should look very closely at the exchange and demand some very high standards. This is not happening. The foundation has a long history of promoting scams, not preventing or warning against them. If they say make a little logo that says "Approved by the Bitcoin foundation" and has a gold star or silver star or something like that depending on how they rate the exchange then fine. Such a voluntary system is perfectly alright. There is a difference between that and trying to force your will on people. Those exchanges that want the gold star on their homepage can submit to an audit by the foundation, those who realize such a star means nothing from a scam foundation with a long history of promoting scams can choose not to have the foundation logo on their site. That would work.
It's enough to implement an auditing authority that then awards a sign or seal of approval. Transparent quality standards must be implemented at some point. Otherwise Bitcoins will stay an insider currency. Karpeles was a programmer - he went bankrupt big time. If he had someone who told him, you need to fix this, you need to have a certain amount of Bitcoins secured offline, you need to ... and we check that now... - he would have been happy. He's obviously not the most clever one. And who knows how many more jerks are out there leading Bitcoin companies without having a clue about financials or management (risc management!!). With Bitcoin standards that not only exist on paper, but are audited and then awarded with a logo, you get transparent information for non-Bitcoin specialists.
In case of Karpeles - it's unbelievable that he was in the board. If even (former) board members are that clueless, the Bitcoin Foundation in its current state doesn't look like an acceptable authority here.
Only if Bitcoins are secure for a widespread audience, they will be able to continue to succeed in becoming a global currency. And for that, transparent security standards that are audited help quite a bit.