4 ms·
> The board is the legitimate authority, and in no way is a board firing its subordinate a "coup." Sam was on the board. They didn't fire a subordinate they
by CSMastermind 3y ago
> The board is the legitimate authority, and in no way is a board firing its subordinate a "coup."
Sam was on the board. They didn't fire a subordinate they kicked a peer out of the group.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoThe board's most important job is to figure out if the CEO should be fired. Your comment seems to imply that the board should never fire a CEO if that CEO is on the board. If that's the policy, then having a board with the CEO on it seems fairly pointless.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe CEO being on the board is a governance failure to begin with, even if it is a very common one.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jjeaff 3y agoNo, I think the implication is that it was an attempted coup. Not because they removed Altman as CEO, but because they removed him as a board member.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoSo they were supposed to remove him as CEO and keep him on the board? I think that plan fails rather predictably.
- sumedh 3y ago> The board's most important job is to figure out if the CEO should be fired. Why did they take out the chairman of the board.