5 ms·

Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially

by kick 7y ago

Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially given that MoCo just laid off employees), and Mozilla still hasn't kept up with promises they gave years ago (that Pocket is still proprietary being a notable and depressing example). Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!

driverdan 7y ago
> their executive compensation rates are way too high Just because they're a non-profit doesn't mean execs should be paid far below market rates.
- Spooks 7y ago
  I agree, I never understood that argument. We have a fairly large and wonderful kids hospital that looks for donations and some of my friends said they wouldn't donate because their CEO makes 500k and he should donate his money instead. I had to explain you want to recruit great talent, and that 500k is less than he could make some place else.
  - kick 7y ago
    The Mozilla Corporation laid off like 70 employees the other day, and Baker's compensation has been inversely tied to the performance of Mozilla.
    - ddalex 7y ago
      I doubt it has been tied, as in a contractual goal. The word you're looking for is "correlated".
  - coldpie 7y ago
    Right. What people actually want is some form of income equality, which would bring executive level salaries in line with their actual worth. You're not going to achieve that by starving non-profits of executive talent in the meantime.
    - kick 7y ago
      I respect you a lot, but how is what Mozilla's doing in regards to that at all respectable? It's not "starving them of talent" to not increase Baker's pay as Mozilla is laying off employees? She's been there since (almost) the beginning, and the performance of Mozilla has gotten worse over the last decade.
      - coldpie 7y ago
        I'm responding to the general complaint that executives at large non-profits are paid too much, and therefore the non-profit is not using money wisely, and so should not be donated to. There's a certain pool of people who are qualified to run companies of these sizes, and in order to attract that talent, you need to pay a competitive wage. The non-profit-ness of the company can be a factor, but like it or not, money is a major motivator, and will affect what kind of talent you can recruit. The problem isn't that a given non-profit executive is overpaid, the problem is that all executives are overpaid. This isn't a Mozilla problem, it's an income equality problem. Punishing Mozilla by restricting the size of the pool from which they can recruit won't solve the problem. I can't speak to the current Mozilla executives' performance. I'm not qualified to judge that. I will say that browser market share seems a poor metric, especially given the reach and pocketbook of Mozilla's primary competitor.
        kick 7y ago
        In general I definitely agree with you, certainly.
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      I bet a non-profit like that could find many qualified executives for much less money. There's an amazing amount of talent in the middle of most org structures that never make much past $100k/yr. I'm certain that a handful of these people would excel if given a chance and promoted to the top. This doesn't happen because most boards are a good ol' boys club where networking matters, not because of a lack of available talent at a price point.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    You're assuming the $500k guy is great talent. Our local YMCA pays the Executive Director $400k/year. The child care workers make $11.50/hr + free membership. (ie. minimum wage) The Y is great, but I'm not donating anything to them.
- sstangl 7y ago
  Mozilla engineers typically accept a salary that is below market rates. Recently they have been increasing salaries to be more competitive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
frozenlettuce 7y ago
Also, Mozilla made donations to political entities in the past
- kevlarr 7y ago
  Which ones? Eich donated like $1000 to a political group that (I would hope) most of us disagree with, but Eich != Mozilla, and he was removed because of the backlash
  - frozenlettuce 7y ago
    RiseUp, from their about-us page: https://riseup.net/pl/about-us https://riseup.net/pl/about-us Riseup’s Purpose. The Riseup Collective is an autonomous body based in Seattle with collective members world wide. Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression >> We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression
    - kevlarr 7y ago
      That's... interesting. Does being a "trending project in-network" mean they received money from Mozilla?
      - frozenlettuce 7y ago
        100k to improve security in an email client https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half-million-open-source-projects/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
  - arexxbifs 7y ago
    I'm a Firefox user but I'm doubtful about donating to the Mozilla Foundation. They at least endorse some really far-out organizations on the Mozilla Foundation homepage[0], such as Riseup Networks. [0] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/?utm_source=www.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=nav&utm_content=about https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/?utm_source=www.mozilla.or...
kevlarr 7y ago
Donations go to Mozilla "the non-profit organization" rather than Mozilla "the corporation". Mozilla (the corporation) has the typical/bad corporate structures and ridiculous executive compensations. Mozilla (the corporation) had the layoffs. Mozilla (the corporation) bought Pocket with money that comes from deals with search engines. That being said, though... > Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use! ... is still a great point. (Updated this because "Mozilla, Org" and "Mozilla, Inc" were inaccurate)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kick 7y ago
  The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
  - frandroid 7y ago
    > Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance You've mentioned this twice in the thread now. "Inversely tied" is quite a strong and unusual claim for compensation. Care to prove it?
    - poxrud 7y ago
      https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      Their salary has gone up, and firefox market share has gone down, its neither is a controversial statement
    - kick 7y ago
      Happily! 2.5 million, 2018: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-2018-form-990.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-2018-fo... 2.3 million, 2017: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-2017-form-990.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-2017-fo... 1 million, 2016: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Foundation_Forms_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Fo... <1 million, 2015: 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... Firefox market share has been in decline (30% to <5%) for over a decade now: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/StatCounter-browser-ww-monthly-200901-201905.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/StatCoun...
chopin 7y ago
As long as they keep Firefox available they can waste my money as much as they want. Why should they owe me anything? I am taking their browser.
alharith 7y ago
Better yet, donate to Brave who doesn't share the same conflict of interest as Mozilla does with Google, as Google is Mozilla's #1 source of income. Best of all you get a browser just as fast, if not faster than Chrome because it's Chrome without all the junk.
- kick 7y ago
  While Brave not taking the "Search deal with Google" route is commendable, you shouldn't donate to it, either. Venture-funded for-profit startups don't need donations, and again, donations will be more heavily felt by the people maintaining the software you use every day that isn't created by behemoths.
- asymptotically2 7y ago
  But I don't want to participate in dodgy cryptocurrency scams.
coldpie 7y ago
> Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. These seem at odds with each other. If you want Firefox to be used, how do you suggest its development be paid for?
- kick 7y ago
  They're already getting more than enough to fund development with the Google deal, which they've shown no willingness to let up on, despite it seriously compromising user privacy. Donating to Mozilla at this point is just encouraging organizational bloat.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (which is fine!). I'd rather continue donating to them to show there are funding sources outside of advertising, which is a business model I despise.
    - eitland 7y ago
      I thought like you. There seems to be a huge problem though: for some reason it seems they aren't allowed to use donated funds for what I thought was the main reason for Mozillas existence: development of the Firefox web browser. Instead donated funds seems to go to outreach etc. I have nothing against outreach but if this is the case I'd rather donate to such organizations directly (or rather increase my monthly donation to Amnesty International).
      - coldpie 7y ago
        Sure. I guess to me that feels like an implementation detail. I like Mozilla and I want them to exist so I give them money. If they stopped making Firefox, I would probably stop giving them money. But whether my money goes to Firefox development is up to them, they know their financial arrangements better than I do. I understand if you don't agree with that policy.
- dblohm7 7y ago
zapdrive 7y ago
Do you care how Apple pays its executives when you shell out 3-4k on their laptops or 1-2k on their phones? The OP just said that Firefox is a great piece of software available for free, and they deserve to be compensated (in form of donation). Now, I'm totally on board with you that they waste money, that's not even debatable.

by kick 7y ago

driverdan 7y ago

> their executive compensation rates are way too high Just because they're a non-profit doesn't mean execs should be paid far below market rates.

Spooks 7y ago
I agree, I never understood that argument. We have a fairly large and wonderful kids hospital that looks for donations and some of my friends said they wouldn't donate because their CEO makes 500k and he should donate his money instead. I had to explain you want to recruit great talent, and that 500k is less than he could make some place else.
- kick 7y ago
  The Mozilla Corporation laid off like 70 employees the other day, and Baker's compensation has been inversely tied to the performance of Mozilla.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    I doubt it has been tied, as in a contractual goal. The word you're looking for is "correlated".
- coldpie 7y ago
  Right. What people actually want is some form of income equality, which would bring executive level salaries in line with their actual worth. You're not going to achieve that by starving non-profits of executive talent in the meantime.
  - kick 7y ago
    I respect you a lot, but how is what Mozilla's doing in regards to that at all respectable? It's not "starving them of talent" to not increase Baker's pay as Mozilla is laying off employees? She's been there since (almost) the beginning, and the performance of Mozilla has gotten worse over the last decade.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      I'm responding to the general complaint that executives at large non-profits are paid too much, and therefore the non-profit is not using money wisely, and so should not be donated to. There's a certain pool of people who are qualified to run companies of these sizes, and in order to attract that talent, you need to pay a competitive wage. The non-profit-ness of the company can be a factor, but like it or not, money is a major motivator, and will affect what kind of talent you can recruit. The problem isn't that a given non-profit executive is overpaid, the problem is that all executives are overpaid. This isn't a Mozilla problem, it's an income equality problem. Punishing Mozilla by restricting the size of the pool from which they can recruit won't solve the problem. I can't speak to the current Mozilla executives' performance. I'm not qualified to judge that. I will say that browser market share seems a poor metric, especially given the reach and pocketbook of Mozilla's primary competitor.
      - kick 7y ago
        In general I definitely agree with you, certainly.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    I bet a non-profit like that could find many qualified executives for much less money. There's an amazing amount of talent in the middle of most org structures that never make much past $100k/yr. I'm certain that a handful of these people would excel if given a chance and promoted to the top. This doesn't happen because most boards are a good ol' boys club where networking matters, not because of a lack of available talent at a price point.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  You're assuming the $500k guy is great talent. Our local YMCA pays the Executive Director $400k/year. The child care workers make $11.50/hr + free membership. (ie. minimum wage) The Y is great, but I'm not donating anything to them.
sstangl 7y ago
Mozilla engineers typically accept a salary that is below market rates. Recently they have been increasing salaries to be more competitive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

frozenlettuce 7y ago

Also, Mozilla made donations to political entities in the past

kevlarr 7y ago
Which ones? Eich donated like $1000 to a political group that (I would hope) most of us disagree with, but Eich != Mozilla, and he was removed because of the backlash
- frozenlettuce 7y ago
  RiseUp, from their about-us page: https://riseup.net/pl/about-us https://riseup.net/pl/about-us Riseup’s Purpose. The Riseup Collective is an autonomous body based in Seattle with collective members world wide. Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression >> We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression
  - kevlarr 7y ago
    That's... interesting. Does being a "trending project in-network" mean they received money from Mozilla?
    - frozenlettuce 7y ago
      100k to improve security in an email client https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half-million-open-source-projects/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
- arexxbifs 7y ago
  I'm a Firefox user but I'm doubtful about donating to the Mozilla Foundation. They at least endorse some really far-out organizations on the Mozilla Foundation homepage[0], such as Riseup Networks. [0] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/?utm_source=www.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=nav&utm_content=about https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/?utm_source=www.mozilla.or...

kevlarr 7y ago

Donations go to Mozilla "the non-profit organization" rather than Mozilla "the corporation". Mozilla (the corporation) has the typical/bad corporate structures and ridiculous executive compensations. Mozilla (the corporation) had the layoffs. Mozilla (the corporation) bought Pocket with money that comes from deals with search engines. That being said, though... > Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use! ... is still a great point. (Updated this because "Mozilla, Org" and "Mozilla, Inc" were inaccurate)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kick 7y ago
The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
- frandroid 7y ago
  > Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance You've mentioned this twice in the thread now. "Inversely tied" is quite a strong and unusual claim for compensation. Care to prove it?
  - poxrud 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Their salary has gone up, and firefox market share has gone down, its neither is a controversial statement
  - kick 7y ago
    Happily! 2.5 million, 2018: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-2018-form-990.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-2018-fo... 2.3 million, 2017: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-2017-form-990.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-2017-fo... 1 million, 2016: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Foundation_Forms_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Fo... <1 million, 2015: 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... Firefox market share has been in decline (30% to <5%) for over a decade now: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/StatCounter-browser-ww-monthly-200901-201905.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/StatCoun...

chopin 7y ago

As long as they keep Firefox available they can waste my money as much as they want. Why should they owe me anything? I am taking their browser.

alharith 7y ago

Better yet, donate to Brave who doesn't share the same conflict of interest as Mozilla does with Google, as Google is Mozilla's #1 source of income. Best of all you get a browser just as fast, if not faster than Chrome because it's Chrome without all the junk.

kick 7y ago
While Brave not taking the "Search deal with Google" route is commendable, you shouldn't donate to it, either. Venture-funded for-profit startups don't need donations, and again, donations will be more heavily felt by the people maintaining the software you use every day that isn't created by behemoths.
asymptotically2 7y ago
But I don't want to participate in dodgy cryptocurrency scams.

coldpie 7y ago

> Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. These seem at odds with each other. If you want Firefox to be used, how do you suggest its development be paid for?

kick 7y ago
They're already getting more than enough to fund development with the Google deal, which they've shown no willingness to let up on, despite it seriously compromising user privacy. Donating to Mozilla at this point is just encouraging organizational bloat.
- coldpie 7y ago
  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (which is fine!). I'd rather continue donating to them to show there are funding sources outside of advertising, which is a business model I despise.
  - eitland 7y ago
    I thought like you. There seems to be a huge problem though: for some reason it seems they aren't allowed to use donated funds for what I thought was the main reason for Mozillas existence: development of the Firefox web browser. Instead donated funds seems to go to outreach etc. I have nothing against outreach but if this is the case I'd rather donate to such organizations directly (or rather increase my monthly donation to Amnesty International).
    - coldpie 7y ago
      Sure. I guess to me that feels like an implementation detail. I like Mozilla and I want them to exist so I give them money. If they stopped making Firefox, I would probably stop giving them money. But whether my money goes to Firefox development is up to them, they know their financial arrangements better than I do. I understand if you don't agree with that policy.
dblohm7 7y ago

zapdrive 7y ago

Do you care how Apple pays its executives when you shell out 3-4k on their laptops or 1-2k on their phones? The OP just said that Firefox is a great piece of software available for free, and they deserve to be compensated (in form of donation). Now, I'm totally on board with you that they waste money, that's not even debatable.