As we all know, Mozilla recently laid off 250 employees. What is strange is that they still have so many VPs. Add in the difficulty of Firefox adding real market share for Baker's entire time as CEO and questionable focus - WebVR and Pocket - which have not taken off for years and likely still years away.<p>Her answer to her $2.5 million compensation sounded a bit entitled or aloof for someone heading an open-source project (https://answers.thenextweb.com/s/mitchell-baker-aGY62z).<p>I'm definitely not a fan as you can tell but wanted to see if others have been thinking this or if there's something I'm missing.
The problem as I see it is that Mozilla is fundamentally two companies, one relatively small that makes almost all the money (thanks to google) the other rather large that makes basically nothing<p>Paradoxically, the small cash flush company is a nonprofit, while the larger bankrupt one is for profit.<p>Worse, the larger for profit company is simultaneously attempting to he a research institute, an advocacy group and a service.<p>I see no problem with the ceo making a "big" paycheck given the industry and location, but I do have major reservations about the seemingly directionless steering that they and their board have done.<p>This is not a critique of the individual research project, some of them being great, but just because Google gives you a big wad of cash does not mean you can spend it without a plan, or that you can do "everything"
Something is certainly wrong at Mozilla. However, the same board and community culture that has led to the current staff is the issue. Were Baker fired the next chief executive would continue the path set by her and her predecessor.
I guess I agree with you. Perhaps she could offer to take a pay cut. At least she didn't fire 500 people on a Zoom call like TripActions. Those people have no integrity.