zlacker

Then the board essentially owns the company, if I understand your comment correctly. So it’s like if Yann LeCun says he’ll come back to Meta once Zuck sells all his shares

>>shmatt+(OP)
There’s no owners. No ownership interest to sell. The board answers to the courts.

>>peyton+N1
Sort of. The board also answers to two other groups:

• Employees

• Donors or whoever is paying the bills

In this case, the threat appears to be that employees will leave and the primary partners paying the bills will leave. If this means the non-profit can no longer achieve its mission, the board has failed.

>>eighty+R5
It's possible that the failure occurred at some point in the past. If the board truly believes keeping Altman is inherently incompatible with achieving their charter, they have to let him go. The fallout from that potentially kills the company, but a small chance of achieving the charter is better than no chance.

If that's the case, then the failing would be in letting it get to this point in the first place.