3 ms·

> brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting Yes and no. Meetings are a terrible way to drive toward decisions but a great way to

> brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting Yes and no. Meetings are a terrible way to drive toward decisions but a great way to signal positions to others. Or "decision meetings" bad; "consensus meetings" good. If you're driving one of those, you should know how everyone involved feels before they meet. You should lobby any of them beforehand if necessary. The idea is to try to make sure you have buy-in before everyone shows up - no drag-out arguments, no rabbit trails, just statements of their positions and a thumbs up. And Altman seems to know that, given his behavior.

pdonis 3y ago
> Meetings are a terrible way to drive toward decisions The decision Altman was driving for was to fire a Board member he disagreed with. That's fundamentally different from an ordinary Board decision, and should not be lobbied for in advance the way you would organize support in advance for a normal Board decision. When the CEO of the company has a fundamental disagreement with a Board member, and wants to get that Board member fired, lobbying beforehand behind the one Board member's back is fundamentally dishonest. He should put the disagreement before the entire Board openly. Btw, if I were Toner, as soon as I knew I had a fundamental disagreement with the CEO, I would have told the other Board members and requested a Board meeting to discuss the matter (and told the CEO I was doing those things). The meeting would not have to be an actual decision meeting with the Board formally in session. But I would want any discussion to take place with everyone present and with everything openly out on the table, not in behind-the-back individual sessions. I'm somewhat surprised that Toner didn't do that.