There's also the mass of the board to take under consideration.
Let M be the mass of the board, R be the distance between the board's center of gravity and the pivot point:
r1mcosθ = r2mcosθ + RMcosθ
r1mcosθ - r2mcosθ - RMcosθ = 0
cosθ(r1m - r2m - RM) = 0
Clearly θ is not 90 degrees, so cosθ is no 0 and we can divide both sides by it, but that's not to say that 90 degrees isn't a solution, it is, but there are other solutions that make this equation true.
m(r1 - r2) = RM
R = m(r1 - r2)/M
We can do a little bit of estimation to see how far the CM of the board is from the pivot point.
The shoe on the right looks a little closer to the pivot point than the shoe on the left, so let's say the difference, r1 - r2 = 3cm. Each shoe looks to be about 1kg, and the board looks like it's 2.5kg.
R = 1kg(3cm)/2.5kg = 1.2cm
As you can see R is quite small, but the fact that the board is relatively heavy compared to a shoe makes the torque the board contributes to be significant.
Also notice how the board is not pivoting about a fixed point, but a cylinder. Assuming that there is enough static friction to keep the board from sliding, the location of the pivot point is going to vary depending on where the board makes contact with the cylinder (think of a circle and a tangent line). So naturally the board is going to want to reorientate itself so that its center of mass is a bit further away from the pivot point. So maybe the "stable angle" has to do with how that angle affects R.
What I find strange is why the board is tilted with the shoe closer to the edge up. I think it would be the other way around, but maybe the board isn't perfectly centered with the cylinder to begin with.