14 ms·

Current CEO is a cancer to Mozilla, her main goal seems like to make more money personally before Mozilla goes bankrupt. As long is as she is there - there is n

Current CEO is a cancer to Mozilla, her main goal seems like to make more money personally before Mozilla goes bankrupt. As long is as she is there - there is no hope https://itdm.com/mozilla-firefox-usage-down-85-but-why-are-execs-salary-up-400/2050/ https://itdm.com/mozilla-firefox-usage-down-85-but-why-are-e...

rekabis 5y ago
[flagged]
wyclif 5y ago
A big part of the problem IMO is that Mitchell Baker is a lawyer, not a technologist or engineer. She does not understand how software companies are supposed to function.
doetoe 5y ago
I used to strongly support the mission of Mozilla. When I first read about the practices of upper management I felt like a fool for ever having donated in the past. That is not going to happen again and I don't even like Firefox so much anymore because of it.
- soundnote 5y ago
  The donations go to the Foundation (woke activism), not the Corporation (Firefox etc. development) anyway.
andriesm 5y ago
Well they fired the previous competent CEO for political reasons. If politics and what you do in your private time is more important than competence, then this is what you get. Well deserved. FireFox getting it what it deserves. If you hire CEOs based on being women or having nice private beliefs, instead of competence you can eat failure all day long as far as I'm concerned.
jslove 5y ago
previous one - now stellar ceo wasn't great either
sebmellen 5y ago
The arrogance is hard to believe. > In 2018 she received a total of $2,458,350 in compensation from Mozilla, which represents a 400% payrise since 2008. On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to." [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker
- CoolGuySteve 5y ago
  Fuck, I'll do it for a mere million dollars. The market has spoken. I can't do much worse than losing 85% market share.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Do nonprofits really care about the market? Not sure how that works, what would it take to replace her if she doesn't want to be replaced?
    - jonassalen 5y ago
      The professionals that work in those nonprofits do. If you want a capable manager or SEO, you need to pay a correct market price.
      - mitchdoogle 5y ago
        Market rates don't matter all that much if the person setting them has a significant influence on what they are. It's like a child determining their allowance based on which one of their friends was able to grab the most money from their mom's purse.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
xfitm3 5y ago
As someone who knew someone who worked there she is absolutely nuts and her thinking is beyond radical. She will destroy Mozilla if she doesn't step down. Assuming it's not too late already.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  No, she is on the take from Google to keep Firefox as a shield against monopoly claims, while reducing the actual competitive threat.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    While it wouldn't surprise me with how awful Mozilla has been, do you have any proof or is it just a hypothesis?
  - kinjba11 5y ago
    Pretty sure Apple/Safari and Microsoft/Edge have the monopoly shield taken care of at this point. Firefox on its current trajectory will bleed to death slow enough for nobody to notice. Mozilla stopped innovating in the one product of theirs anybody cares about. I sort of wish Mozilla would die faster so the current executives bleeding it dry would move on, and hopefully someone who actually cares about more than the money could revive it.
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      I wish that too
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > to keep Firefox as a shield against monopoly claims Not with that marketshare! Assuming you're right, it seems she's failing at that too; there is no appearance of worthwhile competition from Firefox, which fighting for a distant #3 spot
twblalock 5y ago
A better CEO would not be cheaper, particularly considering that whoever takes the job would be tasked with saving a dying product. High salary and a golden parachute would be required to attract anyone good enough to succeed.
- freeopinion 5y ago
  I think Mozilla and Firefox are cherished by a lot of people who would like to see them thrive. But I think if given a choice, most of those people would prioritize the survival of a viable competitive web browser. The name of the product and the sponsor of the product are less important. So a related question might be, "What would it take for a Firefox fork to succeed?" If you think the CEO of Mozilla is a cancer, a fork solves that issue. Obviously, there are a lot more concerns than just the CEO. So, what else would a viable fork need? In the end, Mozilla could implement any measures that would work for the fork, and probably do so easier. So answer the question for the fork, and you've answered the question for Mozilla.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    A fork in no way solves this because you can't for the devs who mozilla is paying. Firefox is a huge project requiring devs with lots of experience in the technology who also like to be compensated. You can't fork firefox, you have to change the leadership or nothing else will change.
    - freeopinion 5y ago
      Sure. Bullet point #1: Funding. Next?
      - account42 5y ago
        It's related to funding, but recognition is really important. Actually forking (as opposed to the GitHub fork button) is generally seen to be hostile and and will split the community (see e.g. ffmpeg vs. libav). This means that getting a fork to succeed is much harder than it would have been for the original project. For example if the Mozilla foundation went after government grants and donations for funding Firefox instead of trying to monetize the browser they'd probably have much more success than any unproven fork could ever dream for.

rekabis 5y ago

[flagged]

wyclif 5y ago

A big part of the problem IMO is that Mitchell Baker is a lawyer, not a technologist or engineer. She does not understand how software companies are supposed to function.

doetoe 5y ago

I used to strongly support the mission of Mozilla. When I first read about the practices of upper management I felt like a fool for ever having donated in the past. That is not going to happen again and I don't even like Firefox so much anymore because of it.

soundnote 5y ago
The donations go to the Foundation (woke activism), not the Corporation (Firefox etc. development) anyway.

andriesm 5y ago

Well they fired the previous competent CEO for political reasons. If politics and what you do in your private time is more important than competence, then this is what you get. Well deserved. FireFox getting it what it deserves. If you hire CEOs based on being women or having nice private beliefs, instead of competence you can eat failure all day long as far as I'm concerned.

jslove 5y ago

previous one - now stellar ceo wasn't great either

sebmellen 5y ago

The arrogance is hard to believe. > In 2018 she received a total of $2,458,350 in compensation from Mozilla, which represents a 400% payrise since 2008. On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to." [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker

CoolGuySteve 5y ago
Fuck, I'll do it for a mere million dollars. The market has spoken. I can't do much worse than losing 85% market share.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Jensson 5y ago
  Do nonprofits really care about the market? Not sure how that works, what would it take to replace her if she doesn't want to be replaced?
  - jonassalen 5y ago
    The professionals that work in those nonprofits do. If you want a capable manager or SEO, you need to pay a correct market price.
    - mitchdoogle 5y ago
      Market rates don't matter all that much if the person setting them has a significant influence on what they are. It's like a child determining their allowance based on which one of their friends was able to grab the most money from their mom's purse.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago

xfitm3 5y ago

As someone who knew someone who worked there she is absolutely nuts and her thinking is beyond radical. She will destroy Mozilla if she doesn't step down. Assuming it's not too late already.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
No, she is on the take from Google to keep Firefox as a shield against monopoly claims, while reducing the actual competitive threat.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  While it wouldn't surprise me with how awful Mozilla has been, do you have any proof or is it just a hypothesis?
- kinjba11 5y ago
  Pretty sure Apple/Safari and Microsoft/Edge have the monopoly shield taken care of at this point. Firefox on its current trajectory will bleed to death slow enough for nobody to notice. Mozilla stopped innovating in the one product of theirs anybody cares about. I sort of wish Mozilla would die faster so the current executives bleeding it dry would move on, and hopefully someone who actually cares about more than the money could revive it.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    I wish that too
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > to keep Firefox as a shield against monopoly claims Not with that marketshare! Assuming you're right, it seems she's failing at that too; there is no appearance of worthwhile competition from Firefox, which fighting for a distant #3 spot

twblalock 5y ago

A better CEO would not be cheaper, particularly considering that whoever takes the job would be tasked with saving a dying product. High salary and a golden parachute would be required to attract anyone good enough to succeed.

freeopinion 5y ago
I think Mozilla and Firefox are cherished by a lot of people who would like to see them thrive. But I think if given a choice, most of those people would prioritize the survival of a viable competitive web browser. The name of the product and the sponsor of the product are less important. So a related question might be, "What would it take for a Firefox fork to succeed?" If you think the CEO of Mozilla is a cancer, a fork solves that issue. Obviously, there are a lot more concerns than just the CEO. So, what else would a viable fork need? In the end, Mozilla could implement any measures that would work for the fork, and probably do so easier. So answer the question for the fork, and you've answered the question for Mozilla.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  A fork in no way solves this because you can't for the devs who mozilla is paying. Firefox is a huge project requiring devs with lots of experience in the technology who also like to be compensated. You can't fork firefox, you have to change the leadership or nothing else will change.
  - freeopinion 5y ago
    Sure. Bullet point #1: Funding. Next?
    - account42 5y ago
      It's related to funding, but recognition is really important. Actually forking (as opposed to the GitHub fork button) is generally seen to be hostile and and will split the community (see e.g. ffmpeg vs. libav). This means that getting a fork to succeed is much harder than it would have been for the original project. For example if the Mozilla foundation went after government grants and donations for funding Firefox instead of trying to monetize the browser they'd probably have much more success than any unproven fork could ever dream for.