Whether people turn against her or not is irrelevant to my point. She has no personal fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders in the for-profit company. Her only duty is to the charter.
That people turned against her is relevant because it demonstrates how untenable this standard of independence is. A charter is just a collection of words. She isn't a board member to a collection of words. She's a board member to an organization of people
Are you going to engage with anything I say or are you just going repeat yourself again? Is there a divine stone tablet that commands a nonprofit board member is solely responsible for the nonprofit's charter that I'm missing?
No because it's not relevant to the only point I made, which is that Helen Toner has no personal fiduciary responsibility to the investors of the for-profit.
You implied that she couldn't publicly disparage the for-profit because the board has a fiduciary responsibility to the minority investors in the the for-profit. I only piped up to correct that single point because it's wrong.
I mean sure was free to publicly disparage her organization, but then she can't expect not to be antagonized. My point is that being a board member is a responsibility, it's valid for Sam to interpret her paper as a violation of her responsibility.
And that responsibility is defined as a fiduciary duty to the mission of the organization as defined in the charter.
As a fellow board member, if Sam thinks Helen's behavior is in conflict with the mission of OpenAI as defined in the charter, he is free to push for her removal.