4 ms·
I think it’s also mentioned the article that they have failed to add new members to the board due to the disagreement between the board members.
by negandnek 3y ago
I think it’s also mentioned the article that they have failed to add new members to the board due to the disagreement between the board members.
- usehand 3y agothen the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority. either you claim (1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board --- edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.
- ruszki 3y agoYou should read the article, because it’s clearly stated how Altman could get a majority. For your other concern, a simple vote change (like Ilya’s) can explain it.
- murakamiiq84 3y agoYeah it sounded like 3-3 gridlock until someone flipped, either it was Sam/Greg/Ilya against Adam/Helen/Tasha or it was Sam/Greg/Adam against Ilya/Helen/Tasha.