The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
Not going to dispute anything about executive structure or Baker's compensation and (mis)management, but a lot of people here are acting like donations either go directly to the corporation or funnel to it through the actual recipient of the donations, but there isn't really any evidence being presented.
You've mentioned this twice in the thread now. "Inversely tied" is quite a strong and unusual claim for compensation. Care to prove it?
2.5 million, 2018:
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-2018-fo...
2.3 million, 2017:
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-2017-fo...
1 million, 2016:
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Fo...
<1 million, 2015:
https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2015_Mozilla_Found...
Firefox market share has been in decline (30% to <5%) for over a decade now:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/StatCoun...
ex. "John's salary is tied to performance - if the company is valued at over 100 billion, he'll get another 5% stock" etc.
or "bonuses are tied to performance milestones"
If you are simply observing that an executives pay rises while performance falls, associated is a clearer term.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tied?s=ts
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/correlated?s=t
But in this context:
> Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance
No reasonable person would assume that a person's comp structure from Company would be contractually bound to increase as Company's performance decreases. At which point, the interpretation of "tied" would swing towards generally accepted usage, i.e. "there's a potential relationship between these two things."
ameister14 suggested "associated with" would've worked better, and that's true. But "tied" isn't technically wrong.