4 ms·

I also feel the constant focus on a single person's salary to be a red herring. I mean, it's not ideal, but if their salary were to be axed, it wouldn't really

I also feel the constant focus on a single person's salary to be a red herring. I mean, it's not ideal, but if their salary were to be axed, it wouldn't really make Fx more competitive or better in the slightest. I don't think anyone chooses not to use Fx based on one person's salary, and there are other reasons why Fx is at the lower end of usage worth focusing more on. So not trying to excuse anything, just would like the focus to be redirected. Everyone always touts Pocket and the salary as these big things here on HN. But the masses don't care. It's not where the problem is.

DeathArrow 5y ago
Mozilla fired developers while paying a lot to its CEO.
lbriner 5y ago
The argument is that by paying too much for one exec, you are taking away money that could be invested into the product either directly or via more staff with different skills.
Miner49er 5y ago
Her salary could be used to hire 30 other people. I doubt she contributes as much as 30 people would.
- jdlshore 5y ago
  The company still needs a CEO, so it’s not a matter of “fire her and spend the money on 30 developers.” (At what, 100K per year including benefits and overhead? Good luck with that.) Instead, it’s a matter of “fire her and hire a replacement” at $Xmm per year. So what is her replacement cost? I vaguely remember her raise being tied to increasing her compensation to be more in line with other CEOs, so it may be the case that there is no meaningful savings to be made there, or even that a competent replacement would cost more. And, as the other commenter said, this is not the root cause of Firefox’s struggles. I don’t know what is, but I do observe that people on this site seem to hold Mozilla to a much higher standard than Google, quite unfairly in my opinion.
  - cdrini 5y ago
    For reference, it looks like Wikipedia's CEO is paid ~$400k. 3m is a really unreasonable salary, and the attitude she has for why she deserves it is even worse, and seems antithetical to Mozilla's brand/image/beliefs. https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
  - 1_player 5y ago
    The company needs a CEO, but it doesn't need a $2.7M CEO.
    - jdlshore 5y ago
      So why is the board paying her that much? Are they incompetent? What evidence do you have?
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
In many discussion of this kind it is a red herring indeed, but not in this one. First, her salary could be used to pay for several developers. Second, her salary does not correspond to the results. You pay execs for the result, not for their title. If she can't do her job well, she shouldn't be paid millions, that's all.

DeathArrow 5y ago

Mozilla fired developers while paying a lot to its CEO.

lbriner 5y ago

The argument is that by paying too much for one exec, you are taking away money that could be invested into the product either directly or via more staff with different skills.

Miner49er 5y ago

Her salary could be used to hire 30 other people. I doubt she contributes as much as 30 people would.

jdlshore 5y ago
The company still needs a CEO, so it’s not a matter of “fire her and spend the money on 30 developers.” (At what, 100K per year including benefits and overhead? Good luck with that.) Instead, it’s a matter of “fire her and hire a replacement” at $Xmm per year. So what is her replacement cost? I vaguely remember her raise being tied to increasing her compensation to be more in line with other CEOs, so it may be the case that there is no meaningful savings to be made there, or even that a competent replacement would cost more. And, as the other commenter said, this is not the root cause of Firefox’s struggles. I don’t know what is, but I do observe that people on this site seem to hold Mozilla to a much higher standard than Google, quite unfairly in my opinion.
- cdrini 5y ago
  For reference, it looks like Wikipedia's CEO is paid ~$400k. 3m is a really unreasonable salary, and the attitude she has for why she deserves it is even worse, and seems antithetical to Mozilla's brand/image/beliefs. https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salar...
- 1_player 5y ago
  The company needs a CEO, but it doesn't need a $2.7M CEO.
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    So why is the board paying her that much? Are they incompetent? What evidence do you have?

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

In many discussion of this kind it is a red herring indeed, but not in this one. First, her salary could be used to pay for several developers. Second, her salary does not correspond to the results. You pay execs for the result, not for their title. If she can't do her job well, she shouldn't be paid millions, that's all.