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
I don't see how Sam can return if the board doesn't resign. It's either them or him at this point.

>>seanol+Vy
Hard to reconcile with people who would do something like that.

Differences in interpretations will happen but the YC rule that founder drama is too often a problem continues to exist and it shouldn’t be a surprise.

>>j45+jC
What rule is this?

>>pyuser+vE
I'm not sure what rule the OP is referencing but otherwise reasonably successful start-ups often fail because founders clash on key parts of their vision (or behave in toxic ways towards each other or to other people in the company). This can very handily wreck your company or at a minimum substantially damage it.

>>jacque+PP
Rule was a typo, I meant observation.

Specifically, cofounder strife is one of the major issues of startups that don’t get where they could.

If I recall it was Jessica Livingstone’s observation