5 ms·

Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990): Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530 Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000 Mark Su

Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990): Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530 Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000 Mark Surman, Exec. Dir./President $170,699 + $40,602 Jim Cook, Treasurer $934,526 + $45,530 Angela Plohman, Secretary/VP Operations $121,322 + $30,342 Christopher Lawrence, VP Learning $153,492 + $62,538 An-Me Chung, Dir. Partnerships 154,946 + $72,672 Daniel Sinker, Dir. Partnerships 123,630 + $64,215 Hiram Paul Johnson, Marketing Lead 126,605 + 54, 903 Andrea Wood, Online Organizing/Fundraising Lead $135,048 + $46,322 Samuel Dyson, Director Hive Chicago $114,860 + $63,549 source: https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2015_Mozilla_Foundation_Forms_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2015_Mozilla_Found... Perhaps the author is telling the truth. Consider the salary costs of retaining skilled "maintainers" like the above personnel. Note I am not condemning Mozilla. They do good work. However I am not quite sold on the idea that their purpose for existence is to "keep the web open" or whatever tagline they are going with. For example, an "open" web would be one made for all browsers to access, not just a select few who have chosen to try to keep up with an arms race of recently-added, non-optional "features" that carry serious costs to users. The key word I wish to emphasize is "non-optional". Users are not given choice and that is most likely intentional. Many a web developer presents the user with a small selection of "acceptable browsers", the ones that will run third party code and readily show heavy, third party advertising. Anything else is "prohibited" and must be a "bot". Users are sometimes even shamed for not using the web browser or version that the web developer wants them to use, calling the user's software "outdated" when they have almost no information about the user's software except its behavior and some easily forgeable HTTP headers. In many cases, e.g., where the user is just retrieving some information, that is just silly. Not every website needs to show advertising. Not all information is commercial. Not all information is graphical. I am not using one of the select few targeted browsers to read HN or post this comment, but I am getting the same information as the readers who are. And for some reason(s), web developers flock to this "outdated" website. Why? Clearly the web can be both accesible by simpler user agents, and fully-functional for the most bleeding-edge features of corporate-sponsored browsers at the same time. The original web standards, e.g. basic HTML, still work, very effectively. The web as a means to offer basic functionality such as HN can be "backwards compatible" with user agents that are far more simple than Firefox, Chromium, etc. The select few browsers that many web developers target overwhelmingly controlled by corporations and other advertisers. Netscape and the idea of corporations paying to use a browser may exist only as entries in the historical record, but I do not think we can say that browsers are truly separated from corporate funding (and influence). Browsers are still commercial, in a sense, IMO. While it might be viewed as "free software", the authors of these few browsers are well-paid by their corporate (or "non-profit") employers and the end goal is "market share", ideally a monopoly. This is fine if the web is 100% commercial. But it did not start that way and it still isn't 100% commercial. Non-commercial uses are still alive and well. It is not necessarily Mozilla's fault for the direction the web moves in, e.g., making content less accessible by simpler user agents. However, if their purpose is to make the web "open" or some such "non-commercial" aim, then what could they do to enable and promote use of simpler user agents (and thereby promote their acceptability among web developers)? I can think of a few things. I am sure others could as well. There is no shortage of users who are dissatisfied with the (lack of) variety of user agents that are available. http://bitcheese.net/web_browsers_must_die http://bitcheese.net/web_browsers_must_die The question is whether Mozilla really wants to listen to users who might criticize dismiss their browser as, e.g., too bloated.

lucb1e 9y ago
Regarding the top salaries, I found this comment interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836919
roca 9y ago
The complexity of the modern Web platform is a problem. Mozilla developers feel this acutely, believe me. The problem is that if the open Web platform does not expand to meet the needs of modern applications, then modern applications will simply be restricted to single-vendor platforms like iOS, Android and Windows, and over time the relevance of the open Web will atrophy. That is not an acceptable outcome for Mozilla. If you can convince Web developers to build sites that work on cut-down browsers, great. I don't see any way to make that happen en masse though. FWIW Mozilla obtaining a monopoly would be inconsistent with their mission and I don't think actual Mozilla developers are aiming for that. Partly because it's not a realistic outcome!
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  "The complexity of the modern Web platform is a problem. Mozilla developers feel this acutely, believe me." I believe you. Do they want to take action to address it? "The problem is that if the open Web platform does not expand to meet the needs of modern applications, then modern applications will simply be restricted to single-vendor platforms like iOS, Android and Windows, and over time the relevance of the open Web will atrophy. That is not an acceptable outcome for Mozilla." I understand. Why does the "open Web" need to stay relevant? Honest question. The answer to this question is really the core issue, IMO. "If you can convince Web developers to build sites that work on cut-down browsers, great. I don't see any way to make that happen en masse though." Not sure where the "en masse" part comes from. That was not in the original comment. The comment was meant to draw attention to denial of choice in user agents given to users. The illusory scarcity of browsers that will "work". (Thus web developers design for browser implementations instead of according to open web standards, which should be implementation-agnostic. Browser developers are the ones who are seemingly in control of what is and what is not a "standard" in the mind of the web developer. Too often, companies are the ones writing the "open web" standards.) I believe in the antithesis of the "en masse" notion. That users do not need to converge en masse around a small selection of known, complex web browsers because most sites, e.g. those that simply present information, already "work" with cut-down browsers. I use a non-graphical user agent. Most sites work fine for me. I get what I need. And this is without the web developer even contemplating the software I am using. To the extent they are following certain open standards for HTML, it all works anyway. On the same day as the OP was posted, it shared the HN front page with a re-post of a 2012 ACM submission by PHK. In this ACM submission, PHK describes building Firefox on FreeBSD. He cites something like 122 dependencies, and a requirement for some binary to run plugins. I have build Firefox on BSD myself using pkgsrc. It takes longer than building kernels. Is there a "Firefox Lite" where a user can opt out of various features at build time? Why not? "FWIW Mozilla obtaining a monopoly would be inconsistent with their mission and I don't think actual Mozilla developers are aiming for that. Partly because it's not a realistic outcome!" Nor am I suggesting that providing options to users should result in any "en masse" behaviour by users or web developers. It is not a realistic outcome. The goal of the experiment might be to provide some software to users that the market share leaders will not provide. Is this realistic? Mozilla has taken risks before. Not every project it has sponsored has attracted a mass following of users. For example, imagine a version of Firefox that optionally has no Javascript engine. This software would be less complex (and intentionally less functional). But believe me, as a text-only browser user, it would still work. If a user complains about a major browser as "bloated", if she complains about ads and is forced to use NoScript or an ad-blocker, if she is pondering how complexity makes her browser more vulnerable to attacks, then it would be interesting if there was another option she might try, which came from a well-known source such as Mozilla. She might build Firefox without the features that lead to these problems. What happens after that is anyone's guess. As it is with any experimental Mozilla project. But at least one can say that an option was presented to move away a state of from increasing complexity in addition to the option of using Mozilla's full-featured Firefox browser competes for market share with the other major browser vendors. Internet commentators sometimes reference a quote from Steve Jobs something like: users do not know what they want (until Apple gives it to them). While this may be self-evident to developers, I believe that users do know what they do not want. These are programs features, modifications and behaviours that users are familiar with because they have been using the software for years. Alas, rarely do developers of graphical programs give users the option to remove features. As such, we can only guess what might happen if they had that option. A large portion of the web does "work" when using user-agents that lack the latest features. It also works with the recommended browsers. The question is whether Mozilla can acknowledge this is true and release software that takes advantage of it. Mozilla can still pursue its mission, including keeping up with the Joneses.

lucb1e 9y ago

Regarding the top salaries, I found this comment interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836919

roca 9y ago

The complexity of the modern Web platform is a problem. Mozilla developers feel this acutely, believe me. The problem is that if the open Web platform does not expand to meet the needs of modern applications, then modern applications will simply be restricted to single-vendor platforms like iOS, Android and Windows, and over time the relevance of the open Web will atrophy. That is not an acceptable outcome for Mozilla. If you can convince Web developers to build sites that work on cut-down browsers, great. I don't see any way to make that happen en masse though. FWIW Mozilla obtaining a monopoly would be inconsistent with their mission and I don't think actual Mozilla developers are aiming for that. Partly because it's not a realistic outcome!

feelin_googley 9y ago
"The complexity of the modern Web platform is a problem. Mozilla developers feel this acutely, believe me." I believe you. Do they want to take action to address it? "The problem is that if the open Web platform does not expand to meet the needs of modern applications, then modern applications will simply be restricted to single-vendor platforms like iOS, Android and Windows, and over time the relevance of the open Web will atrophy. That is not an acceptable outcome for Mozilla." I understand. Why does the "open Web" need to stay relevant? Honest question. The answer to this question is really the core issue, IMO. "If you can convince Web developers to build sites that work on cut-down browsers, great. I don't see any way to make that happen en masse though." Not sure where the "en masse" part comes from. That was not in the original comment. The comment was meant to draw attention to denial of choice in user agents given to users. The illusory scarcity of browsers that will "work". (Thus web developers design for browser implementations instead of according to open web standards, which should be implementation-agnostic. Browser developers are the ones who are seemingly in control of what is and what is not a "standard" in the mind of the web developer. Too often, companies are the ones writing the "open web" standards.) I believe in the antithesis of the "en masse" notion. That users do not need to converge en masse around a small selection of known, complex web browsers because most sites, e.g. those that simply present information, already "work" with cut-down browsers. I use a non-graphical user agent. Most sites work fine for me. I get what I need. And this is without the web developer even contemplating the software I am using. To the extent they are following certain open standards for HTML, it all works anyway. On the same day as the OP was posted, it shared the HN front page with a re-post of a 2012 ACM submission by PHK. In this ACM submission, PHK describes building Firefox on FreeBSD. He cites something like 122 dependencies, and a requirement for some binary to run plugins. I have build Firefox on BSD myself using pkgsrc. It takes longer than building kernels. Is there a "Firefox Lite" where a user can opt out of various features at build time? Why not? "FWIW Mozilla obtaining a monopoly would be inconsistent with their mission and I don't think actual Mozilla developers are aiming for that. Partly because it's not a realistic outcome!" Nor am I suggesting that providing options to users should result in any "en masse" behaviour by users or web developers. It is not a realistic outcome. The goal of the experiment might be to provide some software to users that the market share leaders will not provide. Is this realistic? Mozilla has taken risks before. Not every project it has sponsored has attracted a mass following of users. For example, imagine a version of Firefox that optionally has no Javascript engine. This software would be less complex (and intentionally less functional). But believe me, as a text-only browser user, it would still work. If a user complains about a major browser as "bloated", if she complains about ads and is forced to use NoScript or an ad-blocker, if she is pondering how complexity makes her browser more vulnerable to attacks, then it would be interesting if there was another option she might try, which came from a well-known source such as Mozilla. She might build Firefox without the features that lead to these problems. What happens after that is anyone's guess. As it is with any experimental Mozilla project. But at least one can say that an option was presented to move away a state of from increasing complexity in addition to the option of using Mozilla's full-featured Firefox browser competes for market share with the other major browser vendors. Internet commentators sometimes reference a quote from Steve Jobs something like: users do not know what they want (until Apple gives it to them). While this may be self-evident to developers, I believe that users do know what they do not want. These are programs features, modifications and behaviours that users are familiar with because they have been using the software for years. Alas, rarely do developers of graphical programs give users the option to remove features. As such, we can only guess what might happen if they had that option. A large portion of the web does "work" when using user-agents that lack the latest features. It also works with the recommended browsers. The question is whether Mozilla can acknowledge this is true and release software that takes advantage of it. Mozilla can still pursue its mission, including keeping up with the Joneses.