[flagged]
Why respond to this and not the other people asking what you're talking about?
My point is your post is highly opinionated, tangential to the posted topic (without explanation) and needlessly without context.
It would have been quite easy to say
"I think paying $6.5M in management last year[0] was actively harmful to Firefox's market position
[0] source"
One need not be a chronic HN comment reader to understand this version.
She has deep ties at Google and after getting out of the Yahoo deal when Verizon bought them, she got a sweetheart deal from Google that was an 84% increase of revenue YoY. She then laid off 25% of the company that year. This last year she ran a budget surplus as she failed to hire as aggressively as we had planned to at the beginning of last year and she still cut 6% of the company (for reference we were behind more than 60 hires for the year which is the amount that was cut). Meanwhile she took a pay increase to 6.9M
There is Mozilla Corporation a for profit entity that is responsible for virtually all development of products under the Mozilla name. Then there is Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit that is the sole owner of Mozilla Corporation. Mitchell until stepping down as CEO a few weeks ago was both the chair of the foundation and the CEO of the corporation.
Yes, obviously, that’s the point I was making. She was responsible for more than just Firefox, but the only thing people here can focus on whenever her name comes up is… Firefox.
1. that tax return shows the former CEO was paid almost 7M annually
2. sharing that on this post, they are probably insinuating that it was a mistake for Mozilla to pay their CEO that amount just for them to lose so much marketshare that they're now nearing an inflection point
The inflection point being where a negative feedback loop starts: FF loses marketshare, devs stop testing against it, sites break for users, users leave FF, FF loses marketshare, repeat
This post in particular shows that there are breakpoints where government and government-adjacent entities have policies stating that they test against all browsers with > some % of marketshare.
clap The clap Foundation clap Is clap Not clap The clap Corporation clap
what does it accomplish that excuses this level of waste?
2) The entire rationale for MoFo is:
2a) Own the for profit corporation because MoCo makes too much money to be considered a nonprofit for tax purposes. (This legal structure predates B Corps.)
2b) Give money away. That’s it. It gives money to academics and activists. Is it wasted? Maybe. But that’s what do philanthropic organizations do.
But somehow you think the foundation/corporation boundary is somehow relevant to Mitchell increasing her pay so much when she essentially leads both.