[Aunche]

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

[sarchertech]

It’s not relevant to my point that she has no fiduciary duty to anything but the charter.

Her only personal fiduciary responsibility is to the mission defined in that collection of words, not to the employees of the for-profit.

That’s how this works whether you think it should or not.

[Aunche]

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?

[sarchertech]

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.

[Aunche]

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.

[sarchertech]

>being a board member is a 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.