> One of the most popular and most intuitive ways to evaluate an NGO is to judge how much of their spending is on their programme of works (or "mission") and ho

> One of the most popular and most intuitive ways to evaluate an NGO is to judge how much of their spending is on their programme of works (or "mission") and how much is on other things, like administration and fundraising. If you give money to a charity for feeding people in the third world you hope that most of the money you give them goes on food - and not, for example, on company cars for head office staff. This is popular because it seems simple. Take one number and judge an entire organization by it. Don’t even look at growth or impact. > Mozilla looks bad when considered in this light. Fully 30% of all expenditure goes on administration. This whole reference is very simplistic, especially since it’s closer to the beginning of the article. It would’ve made sense after explaining more about what’s happened with Firefox on features, what it has offered to standards, etc. I’m not happy with Firefox losing market share or with the layoffs that happened. Monetization by Mozilla Corporation is nowhere close to what Google pays it to be a preferred default search engine, and not addressing that is a huge issue. What I don’t agree with is starting the article with a few basic points and going on a tangent on sites like Charity Navigator, which focus on providing easy lists based on one simple number like administrative expenses. I stopped reading the article after these paragraphs.