Its an open source project people believe in. Reduce the pay and you are probably actually more likely to cut out the worst execs and focus only on smart people who want to contribute.

Yes, indeed a good CEO has offers from elsewhere. But...why isn't the business and governance open-sourced like the codebase?

Now, is every well paid CEO a truly good leader? No. But I’d argue it’s a lot more difficult to assess a good leader than a good developer. There’s a lot more people management, marketing and other soft skills involved. Not to mention the time scales for success are much larger.

At a decent-sized org it is nearly impossible to measure an individual developer's impact with any granularity.

I think this should also illustrate that evaluating a leader and evaluating a developer are two entirely different things that can't be directly compared anyway.

But over what timescale? For startups especially it is not easy to evaluate a job that involves long term planning in the short term.

Eventually you get CEOs making statements that amount to 'I deliver 10x or 20x more value to this company than you, all my CEO peers say so.'

I mean, really? After their record of poor performance at Mozilla?

> Hiring leaders who could make better decisions certainly won't be any cheaper.

It's been blindly obvious for years what they should do, but let's state it again: (1) Build up a fund instead of throwing away the money, so they can be financially independent. (2) Concentrate on the browser and users.

#2 is a matter of opinion in a couple ways. Work on the browser for the betterment of users has never stopped. Intent has always been there, but we can debate quality of plan and execution.

Worth mentioning is how hard it is to rate performance given lack of counterfactuals. Is there even any golden path of success in all of the solution space? All we know is that what was tried hasn't worked.

That's just baseless assumptions. And considering that this "saving" did not work out so far, it seems they are not even worth the money at all.

On another side, for the money of one of this managers, you could probably get a dozen or more semi-competent people who are more eager to make money and save the project.

If this counts as "saving Firefox" I'm not sure I want to know the alternative.

So let them.

> The same is true for most of the engineers at Mozilla. They could go to FAANGs and increase their compensation quite a bit.

So let them.

To both your assertions, I highly doubt it. Maybe 1 or 2, but for the vast majority, no.

What % of engineers at Mozilla are in SV and other places where Mozilla competes with FAANG? I thought quite a lot of the employees were remote all over the world.

Just because someone opposes gay marriage for religious reasons doesn't make them a superhero or saint. Is Brave browser doing better than Firefox with his miraculous help?

Seems like the people angry about this political issue are one key factor in us heading towards an internet monoculture.

a) Eich publicly called out Mozilla's current CEO compensation. b) well the current CEO isn't doing that either.

> Just because someone opposes gay marriage for religious reasons doesn't make them a superhero or saint. Is Brave browser doing better than Firefox with his miraculous help?

Exactly, it had nothing to do with anything but people who wanted Eich's head. The same people that are now sinking Mozilla because they have no vision for the company, just virtue signalling.