zlacker

This suggests that Greg Brockman wasn't in the board meeting that made the decision, and only "learned the news" that he was off the board the same way the rest of us did.

>>DavidS+(OP)
Well, yeah, he wouldn't be allowed to participate in deliberation about his own removal.

>>dragon+I
Maybe, but there's a difference between not being in the deliberation, and not being notified until the entire planet was.

>>DavidS+(OP)
Since he was chair of the board... I'm curious how the rest of the board implemented this.

>>DavidS+(OP)
He was chairman of the board, no? surely he was in the meeting? More likely it's some kind of schism and he was on Sam's side.

>>dragon+I
wait...isn't "the decision" referred to in the parent comment about the removal of Altman?

>>branwe+P3
He was renoved as Chairman at the same time (close enough that they were announced together, and presumably linked in cause, though possibly a separate vote) as Altman was removed as CEO.

>>DavidS+(OP)
You've put "learned the news" in quote, but what Greg Brockman wrote was "based on today's news".

That could simply mean that he disagreed with the outcome and is expressing that disagreement by quitting.

EDIT: Derp. I was reading the note he wrote to OpenAI staff. The tweet itself says "After learning today's news" -- still ambiguous as to when and where he learned the news.

>>branwe+P3
Greg's removal was announced in the same press release as Altman's

>>blast+N3
Just guessing here, but I think the board can form a quorum without the chair, and vote, and as long as they have a majority, i think they can proceed with a press release based on their vote.

>>dekhn+n3
In the board I served on in the past we had an agreed quorum where we could make binding decisions if ~2/3rds of the members were present.

Probably a similar situation.

>>blast+N3
> He was chairman of the board, no? surely he was in the meeting?

Since he was removed as Chairman at the same time as Altman was as CEO, presumably he was excluded from that part of the meeting (which may have been the whole meeting) for the same reason as Altman would have been.

>>DavidS+(OP)
Boards cannot meet or act without notice to board members and the opportunity for them to participate.

>>w10-1+56
They can if the meeting is about the problematic board member(s).

>>w10-1+56
I'm not sure those rules apply to non-profits.

>>dragon+N4
ah ok makes sense. I thought he just resigned in response to Altman's ouster, so there was no board decision to remove Brockman.

>>dekhn+45
It varies by jurisdiction and board rules, but this is a common setup and a very reasonable guess.

>>bbreie+Y4
ah ok. I thought the board decided to remove Altman, then Brockman quit in response, so there was no deliberation about his (Brockman's) removal.

>>Widder+a5
which makes sense because it'd take 2/3 to implement something if they're unanimous.

just base logic.

>>cldell+P4
It's all very ambiguous, but if he had been there for the board meeting where he was removed, I imagine he would have quit then and it would have been in the official announcement. It comes across like he didn't quit until after the announcement had already been made.

>>cl42+K6
Still have to give notice

>>philip+8c
> and it would have been in the official announcement.

It is:

> As a part of this transition, Greg Brockman will be stepping down as chairman of the board and will remain in his role at the company, reporting to the CEO.

https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transiti...

>>latexr+Zo
> and will remain in his role at the company

The portion you quoted says he will remain at the company. This post is about him quitting, and no longer remaining with the company.

>>adastr+k7
They're usually in the Bylaws. MIRI's Bylaws, iirc 23 years after I wrote them, contain a provision like that.