Considering that contract was originally negotiated when exec salaries were much lower... likely yes, s/he would do a better job. It's very plain that Baker and her friends have lost the ideological hunger and now are just in it for the money they can make before it all goes bust.
What are you talking about? The contract is constantly renegotiated, and the only recent one that Baker was in charge for saw the same terms after the previous contract dropped over a hundred million dollars a year.
The point is that the whole system was thought out and initiated before exec salaries spiralled. There is no visible correlation between exec compensation and this type of negotiation.
The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary, the last year we have the CEO salary was shortly after they negotiated a new deal with Yahoo worth over a hundred million dollars more per year seeing them get a raise. I doubt that Baker is getting anything near Beard's salary given she negotiated it right before the layoffs.
> The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary
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.
Somebody didn't read the actual text. "Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018, [...]" He goes on to mention how he scavenged the figures from reports. Wikipedia links an article that states she was paid over $3m in 2019. And before then, she's been on the various boards since forever, so she approved the salary rises for her, Beard, and friends.
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.
I've read the texts, and further I've actually read the Mozilla financial reports. Yes, Baker had a high salary in 2017/2018 after the Yahoo deal where they improved revenue by over a hundred million dollars a year, though she wasn't "Mozilla's top executive." Her 2019 salary is not public yet, just a sum total paid to "management and administration."
They had an extremely competent CEO who was more than happy to work for a price below market rates, but he was a conservative, so they sacked him. Now Mozilla has what it deserves.
It wasn't "because he was a conservative". It was because he was funding a campaign to limit peoples rights and and everyone / every website was running a campaign to tell users to get off Firefox if they want to stop funding this. It would have destroyed Mozilla if they did nothing.
No it wouldn't have. The outraged were a minority and have a short attention span. I'm sure Firefox would be doing better today with him at the helm. But we'll never know.
Many people misunderstand the meaning of the word "conservative", which is proof of how much the overton window has moved. If you want to progress on social issues, you are not a conservative, but a progressive. Those two things are completely incompatible. If you support gay marriage, you cannot be a conservative. You want to "progress" on social issues, which makes you a progressive. He did not support gay marriage, which makes him a conservative and nothing 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.
>If you want to progress on social issues, you are not a conservative.
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.
Inflexible people are less likely to compromise. The article and thread is all about how Firefox continues to be compromised.
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.
Wikimedia doesn't have a CEO, but the executive director is paid $387,770, the CFO is paid $289,356, and there are nine other people paid over $150,000:
Many don't donate to either Mozilla or Wikimedia for the same reason.
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.
Yes, since it was named Phoenix. Id pay $50 every five years or so for a new version. But for that five years they only introduce bugfixes and introduce zero UI changes.
A social movement has to form, one that rejects the faceless internet mob, and recognizes only people who exist here and now, physically in the present.
It needs a name. Movements only catch on when they have the right name that instantly conveys the message.
What about internet access only with government issued chipcard ID, two factor authorized, biometrically verified and geocoded via your mandatory smart gadget? Of course no posting at all with bad (social) credit!
There's no recourse against the mob because the mob doesn't have real power. A mob can't cancel your speaking engagement at MIT. Only MIT can do that.
Also, it's hard to assert that you're ruined. I get that this is an emotional response, just like an angry mob's, but rest assured that time has shown that's it's not really the case. Getting fired from one speaking engagement does not ruin a person. It's more like temporary embarrassment, which happens to everyone. Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Toobin, Bill O'Rielly, etc. have all been "cancelled", but are back working today.
One solution, at least in America, would be a better social safety net, so that most of your benefits aren't tied to having a job. Losing your job shouldn't be so scary, no matter what the reason (although that wouldn't matter in this specific case, since this person didn't lose their job).
Where is James Damore? He became the celeb du jour. he was correct on most fronts and he was considered toxic.
Google did not want to deal with the mob. Both externally and internally. They came up with a lame reason to let him go.
We are currently seeing people okay with pulling social safety net benefits for choosing not to vaccinate. How can you guarantee that politicos will not buckle similarly.
I think the first step is recognizing that there is a mob and mob behavior. Then, act to disband the mob by not engaging in mob behavior, and convincing others not to engage in mob behavior.
It is probably impossible to disband the mob, but it does not have to be given power. It is up to the leaders of universities and corporations to have the moral courage to stand up to the mob and ignore its outrageous demands.
The only plus side is they aren’t wielding torches and pitchforks. The mob has always been bloodthirsty, readily dispensing “justice” against those in the out group for being in the out group.
this is the same mob that accepts you as 'in' based on how readily your social profile can be mapped to a silhouette template drawn in broad strokes that do not degrade or distort from low bandwidth amplification because it is already in its most reduced form to begin with.
lightweight, irreducible binary properties, such as 'Y does|does not support cause Z' percolate to the surface where they can be accessed by an audience whose members go no deeper than is necessary to splash another with hot takes.
it costs almost nothing to attract the attention (and KPIs) of the broad, shallow audience that values "cancelation." both sides of political spectrum messaging are increasingly (and existentially) optimized to cater to this fraction of their constituency above all else.
The TL;DR seems to be that if you don't plan, document, test or refactor your code, and don't have great communication skills, you'll be replaced by an AI.
