3 ms·
Her salary could be used to hire 30 other people. I doubt she contributes as much as 30 people would.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoFor 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 agoThe company needs a CEO, but it doesn't need a $2.7M CEO.
- jdlshore 5y agoSo why is the board paying her that much? Are they incompetent? What evidence do you have?