3 ms·
I don't understand why people refuse to see it. They had a nine-member board with three insiders but three independent directors resigned so they were split 3-
by baking 3y ago
I don't understand why people refuse to see it. They had a nine-member board with three insiders but three independent directors resigned so they were split 3-3. The board was split on choosing new directors so they were at an impasse for months.
Then Altman cooked up an excuse to attempt to remove one of the independent directors and lied to other board members about it and that convinced Ilya Sutskever to vote to remove Altman from the board to restore its independence. Firing Altman was just fallout from that.
Edit: It occurs to me that Ilya could have resolved the situation by resigning from the board, but I suppose that was a non-obvious solution.
- ben_w 3y agoThe problem with all the "Sam was bad" scenarios I've seen is: why did all the replacement CEOs chosen by the board side with Sam instead of the board? My pet conspiracy theory on this is that members of the board were blackmailed by someone who wanted Sam gone, didn't want to admit whatever the embarrassing secret was, were therefore unable to give a convincing explanation to any of their chosen replacement CEOs. But even I don't take this seriously, it's merely the only story I've got that doesn't seem to contradict any of the observed actions.
- baking 3y agoBecause the CEOs saw themselves as the head of a for-profit company while the board was governing a public charity. We've had this discussion before.
- ben_w 3y agoYou appear to be saying the board, who chose each of these people, were unable to find someone who would view this particular issue their way? To accidentally hire one such CEO may be regarded as a misfortune; to accidentally hire three in a week looks like carelessness.