Most active commenters
  • DangerousPie(5)
  • devy(3)

←back to thread

1602 points rebelwebmaster | 24 comments | | HN request time: 2.271s | source | bottom
Show context
dblohm7 ◴[] No.24122017[source]
[I am a Mozilla employee, and yes, I do recognize how my position influences my perspective.]

One thing that always frustrates me a bit whenever Mozilla comes up on HN or elsewhere is that we are always held to impossibly high standards. Yes, as a non-profit, we should be held to higher standards, but not impossible standards.

OTOH, sometimes it just seems unreasonable and absurd. Stuff like, to paraphrase, "Look at the corporate doublespeak in that press release. Fuck Mozilla, I'm switching to Chrome."

Really? That's what's got you bent out of shape?

Sure, Mozilla has made mistakes. Did we apologize? Did we learn anything? Did we work to prevent it happening again?

People want to continue flogging us for these things while giving other companies (who have made their own mistakes, often much more consequential than ours, would never be as open about it, and often learn nothing) a relatively free pass.

I'm certainly not the first person on the planet whose employer has been on the receiving end of vitriol. And if Mozilla doesn't make it through this next phase, I can always find another job. But what concerns me about this is that Mozilla is such an important voice in shaping the future of the internet. To see it wither away because of people angry with what are, in the grand scheme of things, minor mistakes, is a shame.

EDIT: And lest you think I am embellishing about trivial complaints, there was a rant last week on r/Firefox that Mozilla was allegedly conspiring to hide Gecko's source code because we self-host our primary repo and bug tracking instead of using GitHub, despite the fact that the Mozilla project predates GitHub by a decade.

replies(49): >>24122207 #>>24122515 #>>24123409 #>>24123463 #>>24123818 #>>24124348 #>>24125007 #>>24125088 #>>24125320 #>>24125514 #>>24125773 #>>24125821 #>>24126133 #>>24126145 #>>24126438 #>>24126473 #>>24126826 #>>24126868 #>>24127039 #>>24127289 #>>24127324 #>>24127417 #>>24127727 #>>24127795 #>>24127850 #>>24127935 #>>24127974 #>>24128022 #>>24128067 #>>24128168 #>>24128400 #>>24128605 #>>24128708 #>>24128913 #>>24129190 #>>24129234 #>>24129821 #>>24130155 #>>24130218 #>>24130519 #>>24130938 #>>24130967 #>>24131699 #>>24131761 #>>24132064 #>>24133337 #>>24140947 #>>24145537 #>>24168638 #
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.24125514[source]
I certainly don't think the corporate doublespeak is reason to switch to Chrome, but I do think the corporate doublespeak in this announcement is just awful.

When you're doing a layoff, just announce the layoff, show compassion to the affected employees, and if you want to announce other changes, do it in a separate announcement. Putting stuff about the fight against systemic racism in the opening paragraph of a layoff announcement is just inviting a tidal wave of eye rolls.

replies(5): >>24125886 #>>24126001 #>>24126092 #>>24137000 #>>24160253 #
vages ◴[] No.24126092[source]
I have to respectfully disagree. It is common for leaders to re-state their entity's reason for being as they bring bad news. See Churchill's speeches during the battle of France, for instance.

I think this opening was well-written and clearly communicated Mozilla's purpose. You can blame it for being populist, but don't hate the player, hate the game.

replies(12): >>24126410 #>>24127103 #>>24127756 #>>24128465 #>>24128895 #>>24128960 #>>24129064 #>>24129168 #>>24129356 #>>24132669 #>>24133629 #>>24140950 #
momokoko ◴[] No.24129064[source]
This lay-off is not because of Covid or racism. It is because of the overwhelmingly awful executive leadership at Mozilla.

Watching Mozilla leadership drive Mozilla into the ground over the last 8-10 years has been like watching a bus accident in slow motion. FirefoxOS anyone?

The only benefit Mozilla now provides is a warning to companies that place how liked and popular employees are over how skilled and hard working they are.

Mozilla has collected such a large group of well behaved and well liked underperformers to an absurd level like no other company in history. This is no more obvious than the woefully under-qualified and perennially under-performing leadership.

Someone please explain to me how Mitchell Baker continues to have a job? How is Mozilla still paying this person millions, yes millions, of dollars?

Pocket?! You are going to save Mozilla with a glorified bookmarking app?

What a sad waste.

replies(4): >>24129926 #>>24130007 #>>24133527 #>>24148374 #
1. nextaccountic ◴[] No.24129926[source]
> This lay-off is not because of Covid or racism. It is because of the overwhelmingly awful executive leadership at Mozilla.

Yeah! They are cutting out key technical employees while not cutting top-level exec salaries.

https://twitter.com/lizardlucas42/status/1293232090985705478

replies(3): >>24130752 #>>24131687 #>>24132168 #
2. LockAndLol ◴[] No.24130752[source]
An NGO has execs with salaries >1M???

How is that still an NGO?

replies(2): >>24130957 #>>24137715 #
3. whiddershins ◴[] No.24130957[source]
If you aren’t being sarcastic ... go research NGOs.
replies(1): >>24133010 #
4. DangerousPie ◴[] No.24131687[source]
I never really understand why people ask for things like this. Presumably Mozilla is paying these salaries because that's what they need to pay to hire good people at that level. Why would those people stay at Mozilla if they suddenly had their salary cut? They are probably already making less than they could make in a comparable position elsewhere.
replies(2): >>24132195 #>>24132754 #
5. devy ◴[] No.24132168[source]
The current CEO of Mozilla Corporation and Chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation (the parent organization of Mozilla Corporation) earned a total compensation of $2,458,350 [1] on a $436 million company revenue on 2018, or half a percent of the company's revenue. I can't find 2019 stats, but on a company that's not doing well, CEO's comp seems high.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#cite_note-14

replies(2): >>24132288 #>>24132965 #
6. belorn ◴[] No.24132195[source]
In comparison, how much are eff paying Cindy Cohn to be CEO?
replies(1): >>24134129 #
7. endemic ◴[] No.24132288[source]
I can't think of a good reason why Mitchell Baker should keep her job. I'm fine with competitive executive compensation, but what has she done other than lay off the people doing the work?
replies(1): >>24132801 #
8. dtech ◴[] No.24132754[source]
Because people feel like C-level compensation is way too high, and people feel this is disconnected from actual performance. C-level compensation has risen way, way faster in the last decades than general employee compensation [1].

It doesn't change because upper management is all in the "cult", and there's no incentive to lower salaries. If all programmers (or any other profession) were in charge of their own salaries, I'd suspect something similar happening with people rewarding each other more and more compensation while pointing at other companies to justify it.

[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

replies(1): >>24132907 #
9. waheoo ◴[] No.24132801{3}[source]
How else do you justify their salary. Increasing revenue? please.
replies(1): >>24132845 #
10. devy ◴[] No.24132845{4}[source]
> Increasing revenue?

Yes. Mozilla Corporation, The wholly owned subsidiary of Non-profit Mozilla Foundation, is a for-profit organization and taxable entity. [1]

For any for-profit organization, increasing profit is one of the major responsibility of the CEO.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

replies(1): >>24133552 #
11. DangerousPie ◴[] No.24132907{3}[source]
I can see how one can argue that C-level compensation is too high (although there are also good arguments against that) but surely you can't expect Mozilla to solve this problem by themselves? If Mozilla cuts C-level salaries while the rest of the industry doesn't then why would any of them keep working for Mozilla?
replies(1): >>24133099 #
12. DangerousPie ◴[] No.24132965[source]
I have no idea what normal CEO salaries look like as a percentage of revenue. I'm not even sure if that's the right way to measure it. But it doesn't sound crazy high to me?

And the worse your company is doing, the more important it is to find a good CEO and the harder it will be for you to attract a good one. So you can even make an argument for why CEOs that joined companies that are doing badly might be getting paid more on average.

replies(2): >>24140661 #>>24141397 #
13. kindatrue ◴[] No.24133010{3}[source]
Fascinating stuff! https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/credit-cards/15-h...
14. dtech ◴[] No.24133099{4}[source]
This is a crap argument. Every company/NGO can use that and it doesn't solve the problem. Mozilla as a self-proclaimed altruistic ideologically-driven org should lead by example.

If the current CEO, whom from the outside is not doing a great job, is not willing to. You find a different CEO. I am not convinced that no one wants to do the job for $500k instead of $2.5m. Whether that person would be good/bad/worse is pure speculation, but it's not like organizations are taking the chance.

replies(1): >>24133313 #
15. mgkimsal ◴[] No.24133313{5}[source]
"Whether that person would be good/bad/worse is pure speculation"

they'd probably have to have at least a negative $2m impact before it mattered right?

revenue on its own may not even be the best measure, if the revenue comes via methods that conflict with the larger ideology. I don't know if Mozilla has that conflict with itself or not.

Your point is accurate though, and I've held the same views for a while now. This sort of thinking would seem to dictate that the next Mozilla CEO will need to come in at around $2.5m - that's been defined as the floor now. Regardless of how well that person executes, they've got that base. And... you can't really judge them after 3 months. You'd need to give them a year to make a 'real' assessment... and you've just spent that money on someone, regardless of outcome.

16. stingraycharles ◴[] No.24133552{5}[source]
I think the parent means that she failed at this. At the very least, her salary went up while Firefox market share went down.
replies(1): >>24143059 #
17. morelisp ◴[] No.24134129{3}[source]
If I read the 990 right, 257500. This is 2x the lowest officer salary and 30% higher than the second-highest. By comparison Mitchell is 8x the second-highest officer and 17x the lowest. There may be more comparable salaries at MoCo, but those are not on the 990s.
18. smsm42 ◴[] No.24137715[source]
NGO or non-profit doesn't mean they took a vow of poverty. It means the corporation does not distribute profits to shareholders (and may be exempt of some income taxes). It still can be loaded with money, and many NGOs are.
19. lenkite ◴[] No.24140661{3}[source]
Fire her and hire a new CEO then. Why would you raise an under-performing CEO's takeaway ?
replies(1): >>24144496 #
20. antoinealb ◴[] No.24141397{3}[source]
I wondered how much it was, and did a quick search. Apparently Sundar Pichai (Alphabet) had a total comp equivalent to ~0.13% of the revenue, and Tim Cook (Apple) was at 0.05%. So Mozilla's CEO is at 3 to 10 times more than those two examples, while arguably underperforming them.
replies(1): >>24144489 #
21. waheoo ◴[] No.24143059{6}[source]
No I meant that I order to justify her salary she needs to either increase profits or reduce costs. Looks like she went with reducing costs ...
22. DangerousPie ◴[] No.24144489{4}[source]
I really don't think it's that simple. Why should CEO salary depend on revenue? Should the CEO of a startup that doesn't have customers yet make $0?
replies(1): >>24145862 #
23. DangerousPie ◴[] No.24144496{4}[source]
How do you know she is under-performing? It's not like Mozilla was profitable before she joined.
24. devy ◴[] No.24145862{5}[source]
Mozilla, Google and Apple are no startups.

Of course startups CEO will have different goals - company at different stages of their growth will have very different goals and tangentially they need different CEOs with different skill sets to achieve those different goals.