But Mozilla's revenue and market share went down since the drastic increase in execs' pay. Would that be acceptable in a for-profit company?

The usual counter argument in this type of discussions is that it's Google's fault, because they changed their sponsorship, and there's nothing the execs could do. And then the counter to that is why pay big salaries if there's nothing they can do about revenues. Back to square 0.

I wish Mozilla setup funds for each project like it was done for Thunderbird. Then the execs can be paid from sponsorships etc.. but I personally have stopped to give to Mozilla any money since that change happened.

>Would that be acceptable in a for-profit company?

If their revenue went way up, absolutely. Which is what happened when the executives got more money.

what revenue? Without Google's half billion dollars per year they are dead.

In 2010 it was a tenth of a billion dollars. If any public company went from revenues of $120 million to $560 million executives would unquestionably get a raise.

And then when the revenue goes down to something like $400 million, you'd expect something like the CEO stepping down and the number of executives getting cut. Like what happened with Mozilla.

Ah yes, FireFox's issue is they're paying Execs below market rate.

If they want to get better market share they should start paying more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Ol...

---

Afaik people's main issues with the exec salary is their poor performance. Why pay "market rate" for "below market performance"?

I agree with that but I see 90% of the time people just complaining about the high salaries. As much as those salaries may seem ridiculous the Bay Area is a very competitive place and I do not see many competent execs taking a massive downgrade in compensation just because they may believe in Firefox on principal.

That being said poor performance is for sure something to criticize on - although to be fair we are talking about competing with some of the largest and most entrenched companies on earth - not an easy job.

People like only certain things about Mozilla, most of which aren't due to execs. Firefox being well engineered (and not having meddling pointless features such as "Colorways") and up on the latest standards, good engineering representation in browser standards from a non-Google, and MDN. That'll do. Oh, and Rust, but the execs already did for that.

Don't need execs coming in selling VPNs with the browser.

And that's why people are worried about where the money will go.

So, good engineering things are not because of execs.

Bad engineering things are all because of execs?

Generally, yes. That is the allegation. If you don't agree with that fine, but I'd imagine alot of engineers would agree with that in general with their experience in industry. Let alone Mozilla.

Yes, that would be revelation. Engineers saying engineers are right, doctors saying doctors are right.

No idea. But the things I care about are detailed and engineering-related. Execs shouldn't exist by default. Even if I couldn't point to anything bad they've done, that's not enough activation energy to require them.

Currently seems paying market rates and not getting competent leadership, so something seems amiss.

Nothing is amiss. Paying competitive salary is necessary condition not sufficient one. Just like paying IT staff competitive salary is basic requirement but that does not guarantee projects' success at all.

They didn't get competent leadership though...

Looks like if you do pay market rates, you still get execs running a company into the ground. The high salary comes with the expectation of results.