And from there it's very easy to ask why Mozilla's CEO keeps getting raises (hell, and hasn't been fired yet) while their main product keeps doing worse and worse by really the only metric that matters for this type of product.
Does this mean that she's actually undercompensated? No. $3M/year is an obscene amount of money to pay anyone. But her public position is factually correct[1]: she could go somewhere else and make significantly more money, and it's up to the Mozilla board to determine whether that's a bluff or not.
With all due respect, that statement elicits a massive DOUBT reaction. It's the sort of thing that the C class spouts to justify their backscratching, but it's hardly a fact for most of them - and for Baker in particular, at this point.
I wonder how much they'll need to pay her replacement.
The whole system of boards and execs is broken, generally speaking, but at MozCorp it looks more broken than average.
Not because she is a woman, because she is doing a terrible job.
Mozilla will stay afloat so Google can tell their “we have no browser monopoly” story.
Mozilla gets 1.2 BILLION$ for 3 years. Mind blowing ... and they handle a product as a side project. Unbelievable.
Certainly that is the metric you seem to be focusing on, but maybe the board rewarded her for something else, like reducing debt or improving cash flow or some other metric that might be also very important to Mozilla's long term survival.
Specifically which project are you referring to and why do you think their success would transfer to Mozilla?
Are you aware that she became CEO in December 2019? The previous walked away presumably as he knew that layoffs were coming and people would be after his job, making it one of Baker's first acts as CEO.
I get why people are unhappy with her, but most of the problems predate her becoming CEO and the executive budget overall has shrunk as nobody has replaced her ole position to my knowledge.