zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
This makes no sense. People are calling what the board did a coup, but Altman is trying (failing?) to stage a coup.

The board was Altmans boss - this is pretty much their only job. Altman knew this and most likely ignored any questions or concerns of theirs thinking he is the unfireable superstar

Imagine if your boss fired you - and your response was - I’ll come back if you quit! Yeah, no. People might confuse status with those of actual ceo shareholders like zuck, bezos, or musk. But Altman is just another employee

The shareholders can fire the board, but that’s not what he’s asking for. And so far we haven’t heard anything about them getting fired. So mostly this just seems like an egomaniac employee who thinks he is the company (while appropriating the work of some really really smart data scientists)

>>shmatt+by
>People are calling what the board did a coup, but Altman is trying (failing?) to stage a coup.

The board removed the board's chairman and fired the CEO. That's why it was called a coup.

>The shareholders can fire the board, but that’s not what he’s asking for. And so far we haven’t heard anything about them getting fired

nonprofits don't have shareholders (or shares).

>>sigmar+9z
So who governs the board? Or who "owns" the company?

>>hskali+uD
No one governs the board of a nonprofit, exactly. In this case, it sounds like Sam and his allies are trying to exert pressure on the board by threatening crippling resignations. This puts the board in the position of choosing between pursuing its mission without certain employees, or pursuing business plans that do not align as well with its mission, but with the full complement of employees.

It's a tricky situation (and this is just with a basic/possibly-incorrect understanding of what is going on). I'm sure it's much more complicated in reality.