The increases look reasonable to me, but not when you consider their declining market share. I guess she only returned to the role of CEO in 2020, but she's been in leadership for a long time, and the org's performance has been poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Negative_salary...

In what world is DOUBLING one's salary within two years while the company overall and, most importantly, the company's absolute flagship product are in continuous decline "reasonable"?

From the link:

>>On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to."

So I bet it's something like:

Baker: "If you don't pay me market rates for comparable work, I'll leave and go mess up a different organization."

Google: "No, wait, stop, we'll get you the money!"

Considering all the unforced errors on Mozilla's part, I'm only half joking there (i.e. that Google is influencing the decision, via their search placement deals, to keep Firefox bad).

There's nothing reasonable in these salaries.

So what do you care about more? Mozilla CEO making too much or Chrome getting to dictate the web?

Unfortunately there will always be things to complain about and no system is perfect. But we have to make choices like this and these are the results. You cannot complain about Google's control/dominance over the web and refuse to turn away from their products to use reasonable alternatives (when they exist). Firefox is by no means a bad browser and it is easy to switch over. You can also still use firefox and complain about Baker's salary but is this really a killer issue?

I want Firefox to continue existing and I want it to become a major player again. If not Firefox, maybe a newcomer, just anyone other than Apple and Google.

I use Firefox on every device and I recommend others to do the same. That doesn't mean I agree with Mozilla, though, and their misplacement of funds make me worry about the future of Mozilla and Firefox as a browser. After firing the Rust team working on Servo, you'd expect austerity measures across the board, as Servo was clearly too expensive to continue investing in, yet Mozilla saw fit to continue rising Baker's wages, despite having just laid off 25% of its workforce.

I wonder about how much longer Mozilla will be able to exist. It's oriented around activism first, Firefox second, yet most of its income comes from its browser, and only because Google is scared of being branded a monopoly. If any other platform rises to popularity (and there are a few rising browser engines in the works, mostly as hobbies, but still) and Google switches to funding that project rather than Mozilla, I don't see how Firefox can survive.

Sounds like our entire civilization in microcosm.

I expect it to last as a Zombie company in some sorts. Not a true, government subsidized zombie company, but a way for Google to pretend they don't decide the internet.

Google says 'Don't spend your money on bug fixes and you can get 400M for default search, and you get your 3M bonus.'

Oops, we arent allowed to speculate on HN? I'm just jaded...