5 ms·

The executive compensation is pretty shocking https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/org

by tdeck 5mo ago

The executive compensation is pretty shocking https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...

pyuser583 5mo ago
I’m guessing it’s below market rates. Silicon Valley and all.
nextaccountic 5mo ago
I'm actually more curious on why a lot of directors receive $0, while others receive almost 1M
- bombcar 5mo ago
  Directors sound like the Board, the others are Executive Directors (eg, they do the work).
- wmf 5mo ago
  The ones getting paid are probably working full time for LF while the unpaid ones are just on the board and presumably have other jobs.
  - gregoryl 5mo ago
    That seems to be correct. You can see the hours disclosure here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801/202543189349311694/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...
woodruffw 5mo ago
Is it? Percentage-wise, executive compensation appears to be lower than well-regarded technology nonprofits[1][2]. In some sense that's extremely weird, since LF is a trade organization rather than a public-interest nonprofit. Their financiers are huge corporations, not individual donors! (This is the core of the bigger problem with LF, IMO -- they simply don't represent non-corporate OSS interests at all, beyond some lip service.) [1]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/43091431 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/430... [2]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460967274 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...
andrekandre 5mo ago
it does fit the trend... [0] https://www.epi.org/chart/ceopay2019-figure-a-ceo-realized-direct-compensation-and-the-sp-500-index-2018-dollars-1965-2018/?view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20260505&onp=171191 https://www.epi.org/chart/ceopay2019-figure-a-ceo-realized-d...
- woodruffw 5mo ago
  Not to belabor the point, but LF is a 501(c)(6), not a 501(c)(3). They don't behave like your intuition for a public-interest nonprofit because they aren't one. You shouldn't give them your money!
  - s0ss 5mo ago
    Why not?
    - loeg 5mo ago
      It's an industry trade association, for the benefit of its members. You aren't one of its members. (I'd suggest spending 60 seconds researching the difference between a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) on wikipedia or whatever.)
      - s0ss 5mo ago
        I have, maybe you should too. Other than stating it’s not a 501c3, I haven’t heard a compelling argument. I think it’s OK that Linus gets paid to do what he does. Everyone here definitely benefits from this non profit organization. It’s ok we see it differently.
    - wolttam 5mo ago
      They get their money from corporate sponsors, because those sponsors benefit greatly from the existence of the Linux ecosystem. They don't need the contributions of individuals to keep going forever and ever.
blackjack_ 5mo ago
Actually crazy that Linus just takes home 1.5M per year for one of the largest contributions to tech of anyone in the world. Obviously nobody needs more than that per year, but this pay is 1/100 or 1/1000th of many tech executives that have contributed very little comparatively.
- wmf 5mo ago
  That's the difference between giving your work away for free or not. 100x.
  - balamatom 5mo ago
    Or maybe the difference between doing work, and controlling humans by convincing them that what they're doing is "work".
  - jancsika 5mo ago
    1st place: $1 million with my work running on billions of devices A Very Distant 2nd place: $100 million and a beautifully framed picture of my masterpiece, The Conjoined Triangles of Success
- potamic 5mo ago
  A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers who worry about incentives and technological progress, this here is a perfect (and not the only) example of how intrinsic motivation can beat extrinsic motivation by a huge margin. There will always be people who value intrinsic incentives and even more so when there is a lack or limitation of extrinsic ones. Society will do well to structure itself primarily around such people. Such people are also less likely to cause damage to others because it's very rare that damage to others fulfills one's intrinsic needs. Linus is arguably a net positive to human society than the top 20 billionaires combined. We need more of him and less of the others.
  - xienze 5mo ago
    > A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers Perhaps the "billionaire sympathizers" are people who can manage to see that the bar for what is considered an unacceptable amount of wealth will keep being revised lower and lower until it affects them. Here you are already proposing that a person shouldn't be allowed to earn more than a total of a million dollars in income every year, which caps one's lifetime wealth accumulation at $40-60M[0]. Which would make anyone able to achieve anywhere close to that sum as wealthy as today's wealthiest persons. After which the next person will suggest that such a thing shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society. 0: assuming you can start earning that much starting at age 20 and you intend on retiring between 60 to 80, so obviously the range can go up or down a bit.
vkou 5mo ago
> pretty shocking Shockingly low. Way more people who are doing way less good (many of them are net-negative to society by a very large margin, and we'd all be better off if they stopped going to work) for the world in corporate America make way more money. Shit, a random L7 SWE or some low level manager makes more money than most of these people.
mcv 5mo ago
Surprised to learn that some guy I used to work with (Gabriele Columbro) is now apparently a very expensive executive director at the Linux Foundation. I had no idea his career took that turn. I think it's the same guy, at least.

by tdeck 5mo ago

The executive compensation is pretty shocking https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...

pyuser583 5mo ago

I’m guessing it’s below market rates. Silicon Valley and all.

nextaccountic 5mo ago

I'm actually more curious on why a lot of directors receive $0, while others receive almost 1M

bombcar 5mo ago
Directors sound like the Board, the others are Executive Directors (eg, they do the work).
wmf 5mo ago
The ones getting paid are probably working full time for LF while the unpaid ones are just on the board and presumably have other jobs.
- gregoryl 5mo ago
  That seems to be correct. You can see the hours disclosure here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801/202543189349311694/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...

woodruffw 5mo ago

Is it? Percentage-wise, executive compensation appears to be lower than well-regarded technology nonprofits[1][2]. In some sense that's extremely weird, since LF is a trade organization rather than a public-interest nonprofit. Their financiers are huge corporations, not individual donors! (This is the core of the bigger problem with LF, IMO -- they simply don't represent non-corporate OSS interests at all, beyond some lip service.) [1]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/43091431 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/430... [2]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460967274 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...

andrekandre 5mo ago

it does fit the trend... [0] https://www.epi.org/chart/ceopay2019-figure-a-ceo-realized-direct-compensation-and-the-sp-500-index-2018-dollars-1965-2018/?view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20260505&onp=171191 https://www.epi.org/chart/ceopay2019-figure-a-ceo-realized-d...

woodruffw 5mo ago
Not to belabor the point, but LF is a 501(c)(6), not a 501(c)(3). They don't behave like your intuition for a public-interest nonprofit because they aren't one. You shouldn't give them your money!
- s0ss 5mo ago
  Why not?
  - loeg 5mo ago
    It's an industry trade association, for the benefit of its members. You aren't one of its members. (I'd suggest spending 60 seconds researching the difference between a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) on wikipedia or whatever.)
    - s0ss 5mo ago
      I have, maybe you should too. Other than stating it’s not a 501c3, I haven’t heard a compelling argument. I think it’s OK that Linus gets paid to do what he does. Everyone here definitely benefits from this non profit organization. It’s ok we see it differently.
  - wolttam 5mo ago
    They get their money from corporate sponsors, because those sponsors benefit greatly from the existence of the Linux ecosystem. They don't need the contributions of individuals to keep going forever and ever.

blackjack_ 5mo ago

Actually crazy that Linus just takes home 1.5M per year for one of the largest contributions to tech of anyone in the world. Obviously nobody needs more than that per year, but this pay is 1/100 or 1/1000th of many tech executives that have contributed very little comparatively.

wmf 5mo ago
That's the difference between giving your work away for free or not. 100x.
- balamatom 5mo ago
  Or maybe the difference between doing work, and controlling humans by convincing them that what they're doing is "work".
- jancsika 5mo ago
  1st place: $1 million with my work running on billions of devices A Very Distant 2nd place: $100 million and a beautifully framed picture of my masterpiece, The Conjoined Triangles of Success
potamic 5mo ago
A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers who worry about incentives and technological progress, this here is a perfect (and not the only) example of how intrinsic motivation can beat extrinsic motivation by a huge margin. There will always be people who value intrinsic incentives and even more so when there is a lack or limitation of extrinsic ones. Society will do well to structure itself primarily around such people. Such people are also less likely to cause damage to others because it's very rare that damage to others fulfills one's intrinsic needs. Linus is arguably a net positive to human society than the top 20 billionaires combined. We need more of him and less of the others.
- xienze 5mo ago
  > A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers Perhaps the "billionaire sympathizers" are people who can manage to see that the bar for what is considered an unacceptable amount of wealth will keep being revised lower and lower until it affects them. Here you are already proposing that a person shouldn't be allowed to earn more than a total of a million dollars in income every year, which caps one's lifetime wealth accumulation at $40-60M[0]. Which would make anyone able to achieve anywhere close to that sum as wealthy as today's wealthiest persons. After which the next person will suggest that such a thing shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society. 0: assuming you can start earning that much starting at age 20 and you intend on retiring between 60 to 80, so obviously the range can go up or down a bit.

vkou 5mo ago

> pretty shocking Shockingly low. Way more people who are doing way less good (many of them are net-negative to society by a very large margin, and we'd all be better off if they stopped going to work) for the world in corporate America make way more money. Shit, a random L7 SWE or some low level manager makes more money than most of these people.

mcv 5mo ago

Surprised to learn that some guy I used to work with (Gabriele Columbro) is now apparently a very expensive executive director at the Linux Foundation. I had no idea his career took that turn. I think it's the same guy, at least.