No. A board that collectively shirks its responsibilities to the stakeholders needs to be replaced. It’s not like no one could have predicted this was a possibility- and even their board did too, but they gambled that it was worth it.

What that tells you is that their board does not place the sustainability and long-term availability of the archive over all other metrics and I think that’s a fundamental issue that can’t be corrected. If growth, popularity, increasing in scope, etc are more important to the archive’s board than the guaranteed existence of the content they’ve curated ten, twenty, or a hundred years from now then they are not worthy protectors of it. The archive’s worth isn’t the data they have today, it’s the fact that they promised to safekeep it for the years to come. If they can’t be trusted to do that and place that over everything else, then they are failing what the whole world has been sharing data and making donations in the name of.

That doesn't seem like an honest mistake, everyone knew this was very risky move. In such a case, someone has to be accountable. There can't be only upsides and no downsides for taking risks.

The board are in that role because they’ve made the mistakes and are now experts who can avoid them and are truested to. If its an obvious mistake they shouldnt be board members.