Usually the highest paid executives (w/ cash) are the ones at low performing companies because executives don't want to work at low performing companies. From the outside it looks like they're being rewarded for the company performing poorly, but from the inside it's more like "this is what we have to do to keep everyone from jumping ship to Salesforce/Twilio/Tesla/sexier company."

But hey, someone with more knowledge of Mozilla than you or I should really be the ones defending this. Maybe some are reading this thread and don't mind chiming in?

This is very true.

If you're a company in desperate need of a turn around, you're not going to have a lot of luck in finding a great CEO unless you offer a competitive compensation package and a guaranteed payout.

That's why you see failing companies' CEOs walk away with big packages. They won't get a good CEO unless they offer comp comparable to other companies they could work for.

10% of their budget? I would reconsider donating, they don't need the money.

And in my case I would consider double my donation this year. Because we need them and alternative browsers more than ever, because current Tech landscape dramatically need more ethics and less golden boys.

>. Because we need them and alternative browsers more than ever,

Unfortunately, Mozilla seems to be focused on everything except for making Firefox better than Chrome.

Sadly Mozilla doesn't let you mark you donations to be for Firefox vs the grant and award system.

IANAL, but I don't think companies can ask for donations. You'd need to donate to the Mozilla Foundation, which is not in charge of Firefox. I believe you'd have to purchase a product from the Mozilla Corporation, though that product doesn't have to be the browser itself.

They added a new explanatory line to the 2018 form 990. It clarifies that the compensation comes from the subsidiary. That seems quite odd to me, but at least it isn't eating the foundation's budget.