MDN Plus

> Does the money go to Firefox or to funny projects and (what I consider) insane exec salaries?

Serious question: do you ask other vendors (Google, Amazon, Wapo, whoever) you use about HR and internal budgeting choices before deciding to do business with them?

If they were nonprofits working for the good of humanity, and yet had exponentially increased their executive salaries over the last five years while market share went down, then yes.

> Serious question: do you ask other vendors (Google, Amazon, Wapo, whoever) you use about HR and internal budgeting choices before deciding to do business with them?

It’s a very common question when you give money to a non-profit, which Mozilla is.

Mozilla Foundation is non profit. Mozilla corporation is for profit.

Mitchell Baker owns it all and draws a salary from the corporation according to public records.

Pretty sure the foundation owns the IP etc and the corp leases it, funneling money around.

Statements are public.

>> Does the money go to Firefox or to funny projects and (what I consider) insane exec salaries?

> Serious question: do you ask other vendors (Google, Amazon, Wapo, whoever) you use about HR and internal budgeting choices before deciding to do business with them?

Mozilla is a lot more like a charity than an actual business, and people do ask questions like that about charities (e.g. how much of a donation will go to admin overhead vs program work is often reported for them).

But do other vendors ask me to use their product out of a sense of altruism?

I don’t know how many appeals I have seen asking me to use Firefox to help preserve the open web.

When they are asking you to behave altruistically, it is your right to ask about their behavior as well.

Mozilla corporation is fully owned by the foundation though.

While what you’re saying is factually correct, my biggest pet peeve is that Firefox is entirely owned and developed by the corporation. If I donate money to Mozilla, it ends up with the silly projects instead of the browser.

To me, this is a problem, and while it’s documented somewhere, it’s not nearly communicated well enough on their website when you’re actually making a donation. As a matter of fact, it’s sometimes even downright misleading.

As such, I don’t believe the corporate structure is a healthy one, and the organization(s) are not properly aligned in where the profit comes from, where they make the biggest impact in the world, and where the donations go to.

When you say "Mitchell Baker owns it all", you aren't claiming that Mitchell owns Mozilla Corp, are you? Mozilla Corp is owned by Mozilla Foundation, as described in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

Most Mozilla employees draw their salary from Mozilla Corp.

I do not do business with them where I can help it

It seemed like the person you're responding to was asking a rhetorical question that responded to the original statement ("here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is"), not directing a question at Mozilla itself.

As a response to that prompt, it's a completely legitimate question to ask: would my money actually be going where I want it to go?

Anyway, I think people do ask themselves where the money they spend goes. They do that all the time. It's the basis boycotting different businesses. They don't ask it in every case, such as when the question has been answered already, or where there isn't ongoing controversy about how money is being spent.

Normally, no, obviously!

But this is a special case IMO -- Firefox is something people care very deeply as they view it as a crucial bastion of the free and open internet.

And that question being common is exactly why many non-profits have focused on reducing "overhead", actually making the organisation less efficient, because having e.g. medical workers do their own administration doesn't get listed as overhead, whereas hiring a secretary does.

With charities in general, it'd be better if people focused on results more, rather than on how resources are being allocated. Luckily, that idea has been gaining more and more traction, e.g. GiveWell.

Who owns the foundation?

No one. It's a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

But she’s the chairwoman and has full control. I think we’re arguing semantics here.

She controls everything. Including her own comp.

That's not how non-profits work. There's a board of directors:

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/leadership/

If the board were to decide that Mitchell's time as leader was done, they could do so.