> Alternately, it was seen as necessary to fire Altman and blowback was seen as inevitable.

That may well be the case, but I have - yet - to see any evidence of that and as it stands all that I think will happen at this point is that the board will find out where real power is held. Hint: it isn't with them. They're there not because the are free and independent thinkers who will keep AI safe for humanity (even though they may genuinely think so) they are there to serve PR function (to present an image of a set of safe hands to the world) and to serve as a backstop for any kind of regulator that might want to get themselves into the mix. Essentially they're a fig leaf that has now decided that they hold actual power and I think that was a mistake on their part.

Unless they can show how whatever Altman was doing directly caused OpenAI's mission to be endangered (and the various stakeholders seem to be extremely conflicted on this) I don't think their decision will stand, and the amount of blowback incurred alone is a good indication of that. In fact I think it will substantially endanger the governance of OpenAI's activities in the longer term.

Note that they should have resigned or acted much, much earlier if they felt that OpenAI was not acting true to its mission because I really don't see the difference between all of the stuff that has happened so far compared to what they now claim is the reason for the ouster, it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back but then it wouldn't come out in the way that it did. That mostly seems post-fact reason to try to explain away their blunders.

> Do you think Microsoft, who had close personal connections to Altman and who was a direct and outsized beneficiary of his leadership was just going to be like “Ah, yeah, you guys got a point there. Let’s ditch him.”?

No, and that's precisely why they made a mistake because it may not be a viable action without that kind of support.

A board has a number of policy instruments at its disposal: advisories, votes and resignation. They seem to have believed that after identifying Altman as the main cause of concern a vote on his continued tenure was the appropriate instrument. I think that in a 'simple' non profit, one not encumbered by a for-profit part that also happens to have outsider shareholders (besides employees and execs) that is difficult enough, you need to really have a solid case.

But absent a solid case a shotgun vote is about as blunt an instrument as it gets and the use of that instrument is - normally - reserved for crisis situations, such as impending skeletons about to fall out of closets. Then you explain afterwards what was up and everybody will fall in line. That is definitely not happening. And you don't use that approach for someone who is nominally been phenomenally successful at achieving what they set out to do - and that's me speaking as not exactly a friend of Altman's, I think he has ethics issues and that is precisely why in my opinion this was a huge mistake: Sam will likely come out of this as much stronger entrenched than he was before.

> Of course not. They would have used their leverage to prevent his ouster, and the board and its charter would be shown as completely impotent. The cause they were formed over would have been lost.

Not quite, they could have simply made a statement that they felt that their role as oversight board was made impossible because of the way the governance structure was set up, that they are specifically aware of a number of things that OpenAI is doing that are unacceptable and then to resign.

Plenty of precedent for that.

> The firing may also have ruined the effort, but did show in a public show of principle rather than in being quietly disempowered.

That's true, in the end the result may well be identical. But then they've paved the way for an OpenAI without any oversight at all and this is a major problem. I'd much rather have seen that they had used their influence in a more constructive manner because that would have had a larger chance at making it stick. If Altman prevails here - which has a pretty good chance - OpenAI will be effectively without any controls at all. Because obviously the risk of a bunch of placeholders for stakeholders going rogue on Friday afternoon at half an hour to the bell isn't going to be acceptable to shareholders.

> You can see where an idealist who thinks there are real stakes to the cause would choose the public firing of Altman over the mufflwd suffocation of their principles.

Yes, I can see that. Doesn't make it the smartest move though.