3 ms·

Who sets the CEO pay for Mozilla? Is there a board that actually looked at their performance and decided a raise was appropriate? Or is it due to some term in

Who sets the CEO pay for Mozilla? Is there a board that actually looked at their performance and decided a raise was appropriate? Or is it due to some term in her contract?

AwaAwa 3y ago
Her friends on the board. This isn't a joke, and you can easily look it up.
- bawolff 3y ago
  You say that as if its shocking. Obviously the board sets ceo compensation. That is why boards exist.
  - 000ooo000 3y ago
    I don't think the comment you're replying to is 'shocked' by the detail you're talking about
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Well technically they exist also to make sure the CEO does a good job. Which in this case they're not doing.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      > Which in this case they're not doing. I'm pretty sure they are doing, it's just that there is a big disconnect behind Mozilla's actual objectives and their claimed objective. Mozilla's actual objective is to provide an antitrust shield to Google by pretending to develop a good browser and get paid handsomely for this service. Mozilla's objective is not to actually develop a good browser - that's not only an unnecessary expense but would also bite the hand that feeds.
  - stephen_g 3y ago
    It's not that the board sets CEO compensation that's bad, it's the personal connections they have and the observation that they appear to set compensation more based those personal connections with the CEO, not based on any measure of performance or anything..
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I was assuming that was hyperbole since if the public actually had evidence of the board violated its fiduciary responsibilities they would be in legal hot water.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        Fiduciary responsibilities can be construed very broadly, and as long as they can point to CEOs with similar salaries and haven't recorded themselves basically admitting to some illegal arrangement it's extremely hard to do anything about it unless you'd been a shareholder.
        bawolff 3y ago
        That may be true, but i also think its pretty unfair to claim, even just on the internet, that the board is inapropriately setting compensation based on a conflict of interest without some evidence its true or at least some evidence that said compensation is unusual.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    I think the outrageous part of the claim is that the board is composed of personal friends, not that they set CEO compensation.

Who sets the CEO pay for Mozilla? Is there a board that actually looked at their performance and decided a raise was appropriate? Or is it due to some term in her contract?

AwaAwa 3y ago

Her friends on the board. This isn't a joke, and you can easily look it up.

bawolff 3y ago
You say that as if its shocking. Obviously the board sets ceo compensation. That is why boards exist.
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  I don't think the comment you're replying to is 'shocked' by the detail you're talking about
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Well technically they exist also to make sure the CEO does a good job. Which in this case they're not doing.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > Which in this case they're not doing. I'm pretty sure they are doing, it's just that there is a big disconnect behind Mozilla's actual objectives and their claimed objective. Mozilla's actual objective is to provide an antitrust shield to Google by pretending to develop a good browser and get paid handsomely for this service. Mozilla's objective is not to actually develop a good browser - that's not only an unnecessary expense but would also bite the hand that feeds.
- stephen_g 3y ago
  It's not that the board sets CEO compensation that's bad, it's the personal connections they have and the observation that they appear to set compensation more based those personal connections with the CEO, not based on any measure of performance or anything..
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I was assuming that was hyperbole since if the public actually had evidence of the board violated its fiduciary responsibilities they would be in legal hot water.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Fiduciary responsibilities can be construed very broadly, and as long as they can point to CEOs with similar salaries and haven't recorded themselves basically admitting to some illegal arrangement it's extremely hard to do anything about it unless you'd been a shareholder.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        That may be true, but i also think its pretty unfair to claim, even just on the internet, that the board is inapropriately setting compensation based on a conflict of interest without some evidence its true or at least some evidence that said compensation is unusual.
- jszymborski 3y ago
  I think the outrageous part of the claim is that the board is composed of personal friends, not that they set CEO compensation.