If their CEO salary was not paid in millions dollars maybe the users would be more keen to donate money?
I never saw a fundraising like the ones from Wikipedia.
I never saw a fundraising like the ones from Wikipedia.
Is there a backlog (I know there's always a backlog) of WORTHWHILE features/services they could be working on if more money was reallocated to engineering?
Seems like a lot of their more recent services are probably breaking even or maybe even costing them. And I doubt they're really affecting market share or reputation in a meaningful way.
Meanwhile Firefox seems either at parity or ahead of Chrome/Safari/etc, depending on who you ask. (Ahead if you ask me, except on power consumption).
Perhaps Mozilla would have been able to continue Servo, but that's about the only example I can think of. The Rust language and ecosystem doesn't seem to need Mozilla at this point in time. https://killedbymozilla.com/
Maybe lack of a vision has a lot to do with the state of Mozilla and/or Firefox. Then again, it would depend on the vision. After all, Mozilla/Firefox's competition have deep pockets to keep up with any technological advantage that comes their way that doesn't negatively affect/impact their lucrative business interests (advertising, services, etc).
Do you think they should find a CEO below market rates?
Have you donated money to Mozilla or Wikipedia?
The rates have bubbled, and do not reflect the value CEO's provides for their organisations.
> Do you think they should find a CEO below market rates?
Yes. A dedicated person, at home - in a bathrobe, approving code merges would do.
No it isn't - salary is salary, and these deals existed when the Mozilla CEO was not paid as much. By her own admission, at one point Baker just went "fuck it, other CEOs get paid multiples, why not me?", so now she brings home $3m per year, with the whole exec structure likely benefiting in similar fashion (because why only the CEO?). See: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html but it's on wikipedia too.
That's $3m that could pay for a dozen engineers at Bay-Area salaries, or 30-60 in cheaper locations - maybe enough to match (or surpass) Google's continuous push for new specifications that forces everyone else to play catch-up all the time, as well as stacking the standard committees where Mozilla is systematically overpowered.
> I doubt that Baker is getting anything near Beard's salary
You're right, she's making 3x Beard's salary. Even with 7 years of inflation, that's a lot more.
Mitchell Baker has given a lot to Mozilla, but she's now very clearly decided it's her time to cash in.
See how the last year on that graph is 2018? Baker became interim CEO when Chris Beard stepped down in December 2019, officially hired around April of 2020. It also never reaches $3m.
Additionally, look at the ~2015-2018 revenue. That is when Mozilla was with Yahoo and making ~$500 million a year as opposes to the ~$300 million now. That is when the CEO pay spiked, I doubt it's stayed that high and they arguably deserved that pay for earning enough extra money to prevent needing these ads for an additional five years.
>You're right, she's making 3x Beard's salary.
Just to drill this home, Baker's CEO salary is not currently public.
So let's drill this home: Baker or Beard, the whole Foundation board is complicit in enabling skyrocketing compensation rates for executives, whose only merit seems to be that they can maintain long-running commercial agreements more or less intact - while dropping the ball everywhere else.
There also is a big difference between not wanting gays to marry and being homophobic. I don't want people to be able to marry tables, and that does not make me a tablephobic. I'm not disgusted or afraid of tables, but I don't think they should be able to be part of the sacrament of marriage.
>he hasn't publicly gone back on his stance AFAIK
If, as a tech worker, you told me to publicly declarate my stance on a political issue, I would rightly tell you to sod off.
What a ridiculous statement. What point of history are you wishing to conserve? Do black people have rights? Do women have rights? Is public education OK? By your logic, the following argument is valid: “I don’t think blacks nor tables should the right to vote. Including the table proves it’s not a race issue for me. There’s a big difference between not wanting blacks to vote and being racist.”
Judging by your past comments, it looks as if politics are an emotional topic with you. It’s best to up/down-vote and move on than clutter the boards with this dribble.
One day people might start to see being inflexible and principled and not giving in might be a better characteristic than being easily compromised and selling out at every turn. Even when some principles are problematic. It's a cost benefit analysis ultimately and there are objectivly bad principles would could make this swing the other way of course.
I'm thinking of RMS as the model for this mainly too. Many here said he should go, but the FSF actually got the most members when they did, because some saw RMSs inflexibility as a strength.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...
Hey, maybe if they paid them more, they could start running ads too!
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
More expensive doesn't mean better, it most likely just means putting someone in charge whose primary metric is short-term profit.
Both companies are known for their big products, Firefox and Wikipedia, and both suffer from a chronic insistence on funding projects their userbases don't support.
I'm not saying they are doing a bad job, but I really can't say if they've been doing a good job either.