←back to thread

Mozilla lays off 70

(techcrunch.com)
929 points ameshkov | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
petagonoral ◴[] No.22058534[source]
in 2018, mozilla had 368 million USD in assets:

2018 financials: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...

wow, 2.5 million for the executive chair of Mozilla in 2018. is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company. this is in addition to the 2.x million from the year before. 10s of million exfiltrated out of a non-profit by one person over the last few years. nice job if you can get it.

edit: 1 million USD in 2016 and before.jumped to 2.3 million in 2017! pg8 of form 990 available at https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/about/public-records/

replies(12): >>22058581 #>>22058625 #>>22058647 #>>22058731 #>>22058749 #>>22058837 #>>22058864 #>>22058906 #>>22059064 #>>22059281 #>>22059390 #>>22060078 #
A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[] No.22058864[source]
I find it annoying each time nonprofit compensation for various executives is raised. I don't want to derail the thread, but it is especially appalling in education, where entities brand themselves as nonprofit where administration swallows ridiculous amount of money.

Where do you get those executive jobs for relatively unknown entities that pay millions? Isn't there an entire IRS publication about how it is suppsed to be reasonable?

replies(1): >>22059479 #
malachismith ◴[] No.22059479[source]
Mozilla Corporation is NOT a non-profit.
replies(2): >>22059549 #>>22060471 #
A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[] No.22059549[source]
Um.. yes, you are correct. Mozilla Corp is, however, a subsidiary of Mozilla Org with all its 503(c)(3) tax goodies that come along with it.

Can you see how that it can be perceived in less than charitable way?

replies(1): >>22060464 #
geoelectric ◴[] No.22060464[source]
MoCo doesn't get the goodies. It's a cash generator (in theory, probably not so much at the moment) for MoFo, and money has to flow only in that direction as I understand it.

It's not treated as a non-profit in any way, which is why it could do multi-million dollar partnerships and pay competitive tech salaries without the kind of scrutiny or restrictions a 501(c)-anything would have.

replies(1): >>22060489 #
BrendanEich ◴[] No.22060489[source]
No, sorry -- it is encumbered as a for-profit to pay taxes, but it cannot operate as a for-profit wholly owned by private investors or public shareholders would (I'm not saying that is good or bad). It is different. It's like many sports stadia/teams, universities, hospitals: for-profit wholly owned sub of a non-profit.

As I just noted in my last reply, this is abused via double-think to defend Mozilla as a "non-profit" when that wins social status, and denied (as you do) when trying to spiff Mozilla as a commercially-savvy for-profit. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

One thing I think is clear from its history, including when I was there (but not based on any NDA'ed info): Mozilla has not been able to act aggressively as a commercial player. Just one example: KaiOSTech is the lineal descendent and successor to FirefoxOS, going to 200M+ smart-featurephones globally, even winning a Google investment. Mozilla dropped FirefoxOS (twice, painfully).

replies(4): >>22060927 #>>22069683 #>>22073785 #>>22080790 #
1. buboard ◴[] No.22073785[source]
They also dropped Persona, giving facebook and others primacy on SSO identities, at a time where they could still change the landscape.