[akozak]

I've seen the "coup" framing a lot I just don't see how that's justified. They're the board of directors! Hiring and firing the CEO is core to the job (as is maintaining mission alignment, in the nonprofit world).

[tivert]

> I've seen the "coup" framing a lot I just don't see how that's justified. They're the board of directors! Hiring and firing the CEO is core to the job (as is maintaining mission alignment, in the nonprofit world).

It isn't justified, it's just misleading propaganda. Unfortunately through repetition and the enthusiasms of various fandoms, it's gotten lodged in the public mind.

[Aunche]

It's very unusual to vote to fire a CEO without all members being present. Doing so made it seem like they were stabbing him in the back

[dragonwriter]

> It's very unusual to vote to fire a CEO without all members being present.

It's not unusual to exclude people with conflicts from a decision. That's a typical part of a corporate conflict of interest policy, and for a charity nonprofit board (as the OpenAI board is) it's even more critical, since failute to do so risks the tax-exempt status.

[datavirtue]

I have witnessed at least one board that was made up of friends of the founder. A doe-eyed rubber stamp brigade. This was enough to fool some serious investors into parking their money there. Of course, they eventually realized what was going on and launched an all out offensive to affect change. (They didn't get anywhere despite owning 15%.) I know this because the investors published a website where they detailed the situation.

[HDThoreaun]

Vince Mcmahon literally owns WWE but the board fired him. Of course he voted in a new board at the next election but I dont think it's unheard of boards to vote against their founders. Sam is a founder of openAI even if he never controlled the board, and they tried to take control from him.

[mark212]

Bad analogy. Sam has no stock in OpenAI or any sort of formal controlling interest. His power is solely informal: his own talents and abilities and the loyalty of the other employees. Regardless of the truth of the matters, the episode is a perfect example of the limits of formal authority and how informal or "soft" power can be even more effective in shaping events

[fastball]

I think the "coup" framing is supported at least by Helen Toner's claims in this article.

> "We were very careful, very deliberate about who we told, which was essentially almost no one in advance, other than obviously our legal team and so that's kind of what took us to to November 17."

If that doesn't sound like a secret coup, I don't know what does. Like, yes, it is their job to hire and fire the CEO so it's not really a coup, but when you do your "job" in secret instead of in the open that's the vibe you give off.

[fnordpiglet]

When a board is about to fire a CEO do you think they typically discuss it publicly first? It’s usually treated as highly sensitive information at every company. Likewise if any company is about to fire anyone they also don’t typically advertise this to anyone other than HR, legal, and maybe the manager. For the CEO the manager -is- the board.

I’d be curious if you believe differently how you feel boards usually advertise such an action?

[JohnFen]

A "coup" is a usurpation of the existing power structure. This was the power structure exercising its legitimate power. It's not even remotely similar to a coup. That the board held its hand close to its chest doesn't enter into it and wasn't improper in any case.

[lamename]

Employees are quite often given no notice of firing or layoff, despite it being discussed by managers or executives ahead of time without the employee present.

Is a Board firing the CEO typically conducted differently?

[dragonwriter]

So, they observed the ususl confidentiality of personnel matters and didn't discuss them with people off the board or conflicted out of the decision? Any thing else would have been grossly unprofessional and irresponsible.