Nothing I've read about that whole kerfuffle suggests that "investors" were the main people the ousted board members cared about. Kind of seems like reading back significance not intended into the original text.
In a company (it may be complicated due to OpenAIs structure) the boards sole purpose is to represent all shareholders. If they don’t that’s usually asking for a SEC investigation or private law suit.
Yes, if we just ignore OpenAI's unusual structure it really simplifies the discussion, much like the joke about the physicist who starts by assuming a perfectly spherical cow.
> Yes, if we just ignore OpenAI's unusual structure it really simplifies the discussion
No it only makes who the responsibility of the board is to - the non profits charter, the donors, or the shareholders. That decides if their decision was lawful, not their intent.
