zlacker

I don't think it's that dramatic. In a board meeting, you have to act while the board is meeting. They don't meet every day, and it's a small rigamarole to pull a meeting together, so if you're meeting... vote.

>>fsckbo+(OP)
are you suggesting they brought up a vote on a whim at a board meeting and acted on it same day

>>vanjaj+N1
no, I was replying to a comment that said it was a power struggle in which the board needed to act quickly before they lost power.

The board may very well have met for this very reason, or perhaps it was at this meeting that the lack of candor was found or discussed, but to hold a board meeting there is overhead, and if the board is already in agreement at the meeting, they vote.

It only seems sudden to outsiders, and that suddenness does not mean a "night of the long knives".

>>fsckbo+(OP)
One imagines in this case the current board discussed this in a non-board context, scheduled a meeting without inviting the chair, made quorum, and voted, then wrote the PR and let Sam, Greg, and HR know, then released the PR. Which is pretty interesting in and of itself, maybe they were trying to sidestep roko or something

>>dekhn+W4
Not inviting the full board would likely be against the rules. Every company I've been part of has it in the bylaws that all members have to be invited. They don't all have to attend, but they all get invited.

>>lsafer+2a
sure. he could have been invited, but also not attended.

>>fsckbo+x3
How would the board have lost power?

>>lazide+Ph
that's what i'm saying, it was not a power struggle. I shouldn't have to make the other guy's argument for him...