And since none of them have equity in OpenAI, their external financial interest would influence decision making, especially when those interests lie with a competing company where a board member is currently the chief executive.

I've seen too much automatic praise given to this board under the unbacked assumption that this decision was some pure, mission-driven action, and not enough criticism of an org structure that allows a board to bet against the long term success of the underlying organization.

I'm going to assume that he's referring to Tasha and Helen.

I don't know if that is accurate, or even fair - the only thing I can see, is that there's very little open information regarding them.

From the little I can find, Tasha seems to have worked at NASA Research Park, as well as having been CEO for startup called Geo Sim Cities. Stanford and CMU alumni? While other websites say Bard college and University of Southern California.

As for Helen, she seems to have worked as a researcher in both academia and Open Philanthropy.