The board may have been incompetent and shortsighted. Perhaps they should even try and bring Altman back, and reform themselves out of existence. But why would the vast majority of the workforce back an open letter failing to signal where they stand on the crucial issue - on the purpose of OpenAI and their collective work? Given the stakes which the AI community likes to claim are at issue in the development of AGI, that strikes me as strange and concerning.
Firstly, to give credit where its due: whatever his faults may be, Altman as the (now erstwhile) front-man of OpenAI, did help bring ChatGPT to the popular consciousness. I think it's reasonable to call it a "mini inflection point" in the greater AI revolution. We have to grant him that. (I've criticized Altman harsh enough two days ago[1]; just trying not to go overboard, and there's more below.)
That said, my (mildly-educated) speculation is that bringing Altman back won't help. Given his background and track record so far, his unstated goal might simply be the good old: "make loads of profit" (nothing wrong it when viewed with a certain lens). But as I've already stated[1], I don't trust him as a long-term steward, let alone for such important initiatives. Making a short-term splash with ChatGPT is one thing, but turning it into something more meaningful in the long-term is a whole another beast.
These sort of Silicon Valley top dogs don't think in terms of sustainability.
Lastly, I've just looked at the board[2], I'm now left wondering how come all these young folks (I'm their same age, approx) who don't have sufficiently in-depth "worldly experience" (sorry for the fuzzy term, it's hard to expand on) can be in such roles.
[1] >>38312294