You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first, because the only alternative everyone else is proposing is that the board is... "ALL mentally retarded", and this is impossible (I agree there). There are other possibilities and I don't think some hn mob is taking the position you say they are. Again, my point is you admit to being in the dark but I don't think you consider the implications that being in the dark would have on making such lucid conclusions.
My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs.
My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes.
Exhibit A: Adam D'Angelo at Quora/Poe.
Exhibit B: Moskovitz's ties to the other board members.
Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions.
which brings on Exhibit C: Installing Emmett Shear, a man who wanted to slow down OpenAI's pace by 90%.