They did not really resign in a true sense. They asked to not be placed for reelection. It said that each "will not be standing for reelection as a director at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders to be held on October 28, 2021." They will serve out their current terms. There is a huge difference.
If they had truly resigned, meaning leaving forthwith, that would be a bad sign. Also, they both "indicated that his decision was not because of a disagreement with the Company."
They are leaving after the October 28 Board of Directors election is determined. They are not standing for reelection.
You state "Literally the only positive reason is a magical partnership." Don't you think you are being overly dramatic? "Magical" now, any partnership won't do?
You want another possibility, here is one:
Shareholders, 13Ders, outsiders, others, have complained about the current Board of Director members. I have heard complaints about literally all of them at some point. I am not saying this possibility is the case, because I have no insider information, but what if management has two outstanding people (not 13Ders) that are willing to stand for election as replacement Board of Director members. With the 13D chaos, management does not just want to appoint them, but have them elected by the shareholders. That would require two current Board of Directors to leave, which you would have to find two to so leave, which these could be the two.
Isn't that another possibility other than a partnership?