4 ms·

> I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few da

by tivert 3y ago

> I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted.

reso 3y ago
Sure, it was not my point to suggest it wasn’t legal, just that it was a bold action which has gone completely unexplained.
darkerside 3y ago
I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not. The GP was pretty clear that he thought "the entire board decided to do a coup," which does not fit that interpretation. But even the scenario you describe isn't something that can be properly described as a "coup." In that case, the employees are just appealing to a legitimate higher authority, which is a totally OK thing to do (e.g. it's not wrong to report a bribe-taking boss to the company ethics hotline). IMHO, a coup is where subordinates illegitimately usurp and depose the highest authority from below.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    I probably missed that in the GP comment. I don't think invoking a higher power necessarily makes it not a coup. To me, a coup is when you angle to relieve someone from office above you by any means. But reasonable people can disagree on that, I suppose.
PepperdineG 3y ago
>I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. >The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted. The CEO was a member of the board and the ones that fired the CEO also fired the Chairman of the Board, so the board went from 6 to 4. So far there's been even less of an explanation for the firing of the Chairman of the Board - who they offered to let remain as a regular employee - than there has been for Altman, though I see the removal of the Chairman as potentially the most egregious and coup-like.
- nicce 3y ago
  Is it still a coup? Why do we have voting in board and democracy in the first place if one cannot use it for its intended use case without the fear of retaliation? They clearly could have been more transparent, but it still does not make it as coup. If you think so - that is why populism is considered as threat for democracy.

by tivert 3y ago

reso 3y ago

Sure, it was not my point to suggest it wasn’t legal, just that it was a bold action which has gone completely unexplained.

darkerside 3y ago

I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not.

tivert 3y ago
> I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not. The GP was pretty clear that he thought "the entire board decided to do a coup," which does not fit that interpretation. But even the scenario you describe isn't something that can be properly described as a "coup." In that case, the employees are just appealing to a legitimate higher authority, which is a totally OK thing to do (e.g. it's not wrong to report a bribe-taking boss to the company ethics hotline). IMHO, a coup is where subordinates illegitimately usurp and depose the highest authority from below.
- darkerside 3y ago
  I probably missed that in the GP comment. I don't think invoking a higher power necessarily makes it not a coup. To me, a coup is when you angle to relieve someone from office above you by any means. But reasonable people can disagree on that, I suppose.

PepperdineG 3y ago

>I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. >The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted. The CEO was a member of the board and the ones that fired the CEO also fired the Chairman of the Board, so the board went from 6 to 4. So far there's been even less of an explanation for the firing of the Chairman of the Board - who they offered to let remain as a regular employee - than there has been for Altman, though I see the removal of the Chairman as potentially the most egregious and coup-like.

nicce 3y ago
Is it still a coup? Why do we have voting in board and democracy in the first place if one cannot use it for its intended use case without the fear of retaliation? They clearly could have been more transparent, but it still does not make it as coup. If you think so - that is why populism is considered as threat for democracy.