5 ms·

Mozilla has decided to move to a different mission less about improving the web and more about enacting things that make them money, so they can continue to pay

Mozilla has decided to move to a different mission less about improving the web and more about enacting things that make them money, so they can continue to pay a large CEO salary and push policy objectives against free speech. Unfortunately Mozilla seemed to go from "awesome" to really disappointing in a very short time window.

runarberg 6y ago
> pay a large CEO salary Sure, I’ll buy that. > push policy objectives against free speech Can people please stop this latent homophobia? Mozilla fired a person who donated money to a deplorable cause. You can try to hide behind free speech, but we all know what this is about.
- BearOso 6y ago
  > Can people please stop this latent homophobia? Mozilla fired a person who donated money to a deplorable cause. You can try to hide behind free speech, but we all know what this is about. He quit. And I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t exactly call his cause deplorable. People with those views can believe they’re being completely ethical. That was also in 2008, a different political climate, and nobody allowed him to learn from it or to restitute. Of course, I agree that wasn’t their downfall—it was simply misdirected goals and funding.
  - dralley 6y ago
    >He quit. And I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t exactly call his cause deplorable. The purpose of Proposition 8 was to remove the right to marry from gay couples - yes remove - because the courts had already granted them that right. If I was a gay Mozilla employee and I learned that my CEO wanted to remove rights which the legal system had already granted me, I would be so incredibly demoralized and pissed. Regardless of personal beliefs, it's a bad thing for a leader of a tech company to be doing if they want to retain talent.
    - nnethercote 6y ago
      It was a really weird and messy situation, and unpleasant to live through. I agree that Brendan's Prop 8 donation was bad. But he did it privately, and never (AFAIK) made anti-LGBT comments in public. People who had worked with him for many years were surprised to find he had these views. It was only found out because of political donation public disclosure laws. Some Mozilla employees publicly criticized Brendan for the Prop 8 donation, but some defended him, because of the aforementioned privateness of it. A number of the defenses came from LGBT employees. The pile-on at the time was intense. It lasted more than a week. It reached the front page of my local paper. Crazy stuff. Brendan chose to stand down as CEO and also quit Mozilla. He wasn't fired, and Mozilla leadership asked him to stay. All this nuance was lost. Lots of left-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had knowingly promoted a proudly anti-LGBT guy to CEO. Lots of right-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had fired their CEO for his political views. Both conclusions were greatly over-simplified. Almost everyone found a reason to hate Mozilla. Bad times!
unethical_ban 6y ago
Wow, that is a hugely loaded statement. Even if it is 100% true, the level of derision and bias should make any person not familiar with the situation question everything you say. If you're going to be that biased, at least back it up. And by back it up, I mean at LEAST throwing in some statements of fact, if not URLs.
- coldpie 6y ago
  Every thread tangentially related to Mozilla has a bunch of people who don't understand how non-profits work come in and complain about executive compensation.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    I'd say >$2.4M in exec comp[1] isn't just making up for a lack of stock options. [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-cuts-70-staff-as-part-of-push-beyond-firefox-priorities/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-cuts-70-staff-as-part-of-p...
    - coldpie 6y ago
      The absolute number doesn't matter. Non-profits participate in the same labor market as for-profit companies. You have to compare it to executive salaries for other similarly sized companies in their market segment to make the argument that she is overpaid. Otherwise you're just arguing against income inequality, which is not a problem exclusive to Mozilla, and crippling Mozilla's ability to participate in that labor market will not fix it.
      - WhyNotHugo 6y ago
        > You have to compare it to executive salaries for other similarly sized companies in their market segment to make the argument that she is overpaid. No, a non-profit does not need to attract someone who only cares about making money. Hiring someone willing to work for less would ultimately be better for a non-profit, since it's an indicator that they care about the mission, and not purely about the money. If you hire someone who wants over 2M, you hire someone who cares about your money, not your ideals, and will push the organisation in that direction.
wizzwizz4 6y ago
Mozilla currently cares more about surviving than its main mission. And yes, it can't accomplish its mission if it dies, but don't they understand? If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. The way to kill Mozilla is from the inside: to quash its soul.
- The_Colonel 6y ago
  > If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. Yes, another chrome skin perhaps?
- munificent 6y ago
  > Mozilla currently cares more about surviving than its main mission. In the open market, any organization that doesn't cares more about its survival than its mission will eventually be replaced by one that does. This is fundamental to the definition of "survival". > If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. The one that will take its place will be an organization that prioritizes survival, not its mission.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Organisations are made of people. There are enough people who care about Mozilla's mission that they'd do the things even if Mozilla didn't, and if they got together they could get at least 10% of the funding from non-Google people who currently donate to Mozilla, if Mozilla ceased to exist. The only real downside is that they wouldn't have a seat on the WHATWG.

runarberg 6y ago

> pay a large CEO salary Sure, I’ll buy that. > push policy objectives against free speech Can people please stop this latent homophobia? Mozilla fired a person who donated money to a deplorable cause. You can try to hide behind free speech, but we all know what this is about.

BearOso 6y ago
> Can people please stop this latent homophobia? Mozilla fired a person who donated money to a deplorable cause. You can try to hide behind free speech, but we all know what this is about. He quit. And I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t exactly call his cause deplorable. People with those views can believe they’re being completely ethical. That was also in 2008, a different political climate, and nobody allowed him to learn from it or to restitute. Of course, I agree that wasn’t their downfall—it was simply misdirected goals and funding.
- dralley 6y ago
  >He quit. And I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t exactly call his cause deplorable. The purpose of Proposition 8 was to remove the right to marry from gay couples - yes remove - because the courts had already granted them that right. If I was a gay Mozilla employee and I learned that my CEO wanted to remove rights which the legal system had already granted me, I would be so incredibly demoralized and pissed. Regardless of personal beliefs, it's a bad thing for a leader of a tech company to be doing if they want to retain talent.
  - nnethercote 6y ago
    It was a really weird and messy situation, and unpleasant to live through. I agree that Brendan's Prop 8 donation was bad. But he did it privately, and never (AFAIK) made anti-LGBT comments in public. People who had worked with him for many years were surprised to find he had these views. It was only found out because of political donation public disclosure laws. Some Mozilla employees publicly criticized Brendan for the Prop 8 donation, but some defended him, because of the aforementioned privateness of it. A number of the defenses came from LGBT employees. The pile-on at the time was intense. It lasted more than a week. It reached the front page of my local paper. Crazy stuff. Brendan chose to stand down as CEO and also quit Mozilla. He wasn't fired, and Mozilla leadership asked him to stay. All this nuance was lost. Lots of left-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had knowingly promoted a proudly anti-LGBT guy to CEO. Lots of right-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had fired their CEO for his political views. Both conclusions were greatly over-simplified. Almost everyone found a reason to hate Mozilla. Bad times!

unethical_ban 6y ago

Wow, that is a hugely loaded statement. Even if it is 100% true, the level of derision and bias should make any person not familiar with the situation question everything you say. If you're going to be that biased, at least back it up. And by back it up, I mean at LEAST throwing in some statements of fact, if not URLs.

coldpie 6y ago
Every thread tangentially related to Mozilla has a bunch of people who don't understand how non-profits work come in and complain about executive compensation.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  I'd say >$2.4M in exec comp[1] isn't just making up for a lack of stock options. [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-cuts-70-staff-as-part-of-push-beyond-firefox-priorities/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-cuts-70-staff-as-part-of-p...
  - coldpie 6y ago
    The absolute number doesn't matter. Non-profits participate in the same labor market as for-profit companies. You have to compare it to executive salaries for other similarly sized companies in their market segment to make the argument that she is overpaid. Otherwise you're just arguing against income inequality, which is not a problem exclusive to Mozilla, and crippling Mozilla's ability to participate in that labor market will not fix it.
    - WhyNotHugo 6y ago
      > You have to compare it to executive salaries for other similarly sized companies in their market segment to make the argument that she is overpaid. No, a non-profit does not need to attract someone who only cares about making money. Hiring someone willing to work for less would ultimately be better for a non-profit, since it's an indicator that they care about the mission, and not purely about the money. If you hire someone who wants over 2M, you hire someone who cares about your money, not your ideals, and will push the organisation in that direction.

wizzwizz4 6y ago

Mozilla currently cares more about surviving than its main mission. And yes, it can't accomplish its mission if it dies, but don't they understand? If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. The way to kill Mozilla is from the inside: to quash its soul.

The_Colonel 6y ago
> If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. Yes, another chrome skin perhaps?
munificent 6y ago
> Mozilla currently cares more about surviving than its main mission. In the open market, any organization that doesn't cares more about its survival than its mission will eventually be replaced by one that does. This is fundamental to the definition of "survival". > If Mozilla falls, another will take its place. The one that will take its place will be an organization that prioritizes survival, not its mission.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Organisations are made of people. There are enough people who care about Mozilla's mission that they'd do the things even if Mozilla didn't, and if they got together they could get at least 10% of the funding from non-Google people who currently donate to Mozilla, if Mozilla ceased to exist. The only real downside is that they wouldn't have a seat on the WHATWG.