> Yes, of course you will be able to fill just about any c-role at just about any rate. But, somehow, just as with any other job, the good people – those you will actually want to fill that role – want to be paid what the market tells them they are worth.

How do you measure how good a CEO is? Is having to let go 25% of your staff, axing the security team and stopping new developments indicative of good performance?

It's all bullshit. There's almost no measure by which particular CEOs are better than the average/random. Much like investors: almost no investors can be said to be consistently better than the average, i.e. the distribution follows what you would expect if everyone is doing decisions at random. Despite that, we still believe there are objectively good CEOs or investors (apart from a very small minority) who therefore deserve their outrageous compensation for their leadership and decision skills.

Just look at the amount of CEOs who got international industry awards or recognition, who some years later tanked their companies or were found to be engaged in criminal practices.

Maybe that’s why c level employees should be compensated on reaching certain targets, rather than getting at least a million a year. Because, if you are the captain of a schip, you should drown with it if it capsized.

No, they should not. Nobody should ever drown.

In isolation, no.

In context of mozillas goals, challenges that arise when leading a company, and limited influence on the movement of the world, maybe. I doubt that either of us is close enough to the ground to realistically be a judge of that.

> But, somehow, just as with any other job, the good people – those you will actually want to fill that role – want to be paid what the market tells them they are worth.

I would say that's a very naive view that idealizes the process (and I say that as someone who is very pro market), especially as you rise up in ranks and especially in this instance where a non-profit is failing to execute on their core mission.

I've seen people go from board advisors in relatively large companies to IKEA store workers or long term unemployment. It's more about who you know and how you play politics than your ability to provide value to the entity, a lot of politics gets played the higher you climb. The market value for these people could very well be higher this still has nothing to do with the value they provide in their current role - it could very well be that a less qualified (in general market terms) person could be a better fit for this unique organisation.

> very naive view

Yes, I think so too.

The more money that gets involved, the more this'll attract people who care about money, not the mission.

I'd expect execs at bigger companies to be less good execs, but better at office politics and impressions.

The thing is, mozillas market share is in steady decline, while Bakers salary goes steadily up.

And the tech people who are the ones who actually do the tech work, people expect of mozilla have to go.

I don't know any universe, where this sounds right.

> Who around here (who is also actually qualified enough, that mozilla would want them) would switch over, taking a 50% pay cut over their current pay, right now?

I think among the engineers you'll find a bunch of qualified people for that job.

Speaking from some personal experience at another company (a small one, 20-30 people).

Execs good at giving a good impression, and making money for themselves.

Presidents good at winning the elections.

But that's a bit unrelated to being good for the company. Or the people in the country.

I think/guess that some altruistically motivated engineers could save Mozilla and Firefox if they got to replace the current execs.

Or take worker control of a business run by vampires.

Your vision of a better world is miopic.