in 2018, mozilla had 368 million USD in assets: 2018 financials: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201... wow, 2.5 million for the executive chair of Mozilla in 2018. is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company. this is in addition to the 2.x million from the year before. 10s of million exfiltrated out of a non-profit by one person over the last few years. n…
Playing devil's advocate, if you are able to close a deal that is bringing more than 2.5 million a year, then you are definitely worth that amount.
I don't understand Mozilla. How did the go from a lightweight Mozilla Browser alternative to a company that spends $450m annually and dedicates $43m just for future endeavors? Why couldn't they just focus on making the best browser possible with a small dedicated team?
Empire building tends to be irresistible to those in positions eligible.
I don't see how that is an unreasonable salary for the CEO of a highly influential tech company. CEO pay for other large tech companies is much higher.
I'll do it for a cool 800k.
I hope you are joking.
If someone said I'll do full-stack dev for 150k instead 400k at google, how would you take that question?
I don't see how that is an unreasonable salary for the CEO of a highly influential tech company. CEO pay for other large tech companies is much higher.
There's hundreds of other engineers that can probably do as good of a job or better than him. Just because someone has a CEO label doesn't mean they have to be paid extreme amounts of money.
They don't appear to, however. For another response, I was looking at their 2019 financials, and for the Mozilla Foundation unit, 60 employees cost about $11M. I stand by my guesstimate of $200,000 as a high estimate.
I expect the foundation (which is largely non-technical) to have much lower average compensation than the corporation (which is predominately engineering-focused).
That 11M would, however, cover a lot of the leadership and directors, who are among the highest paid employees of the company.
in 2018, mozilla had 368 million USD in assets: 2018 financials: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201... wow, 2.5 million for the executive chair of Mozilla in 2018. is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company. this is in addition to the 2.x million from the year before. 10s of million exfiltrated out of a non-profit by one person over the last few years. n…
>is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company Change the number and this will apply to most CEOs. https://www.glassdoor.com/research/ceo-pay-ratio/ According to these numbers, CEOs work 204 times as hard as regular employees.
> CEOs work 204 times as hard as regular employees
That's an interesting (and ridiculous) way to spin the numbers.
One doesn't have to work x times harder to bring x times more value to a company.
Not sure of Mozilla’s financial or organizational structure but it seems to be part of a larger trend of de-emphasizing QA departments at software shops large and small over the past 10 or so years. In many ways test automation tooling has become much easier to use, develop, and manage. But I suspect the larger driving force is that it’s (arguably) a cost center for an org. The burden of ensuring software quality can…
I wonder if it's improvements in automation or if QA responsibilities are increasingly rolling up into standard developer roles or because the line between QA and dev is blurring (e.g., software testing now requires stronger dev/automation skills so the QA job looks more like standard software engineering)?
I don't think automation or shift of testing responsibilities to developers is harming QA role in any way, it's just the first candidate for layoffs, because it does not have immediate impact on business. Independent SQA is still relevant, even it it becomes a developer specialization.
> is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company. Probably not but that is what the market cost is. I have no doubt the executive chair of Mozilla has other offers.
I’ll do it for 1.5.
Your price is lower, but maybe your cost is higher.
Not sure of Mozilla’s financial or organizational structure but it seems to be part of a larger trend of de-emphasizing QA departments at software shops large and small over the past 10 or so years. In many ways test automation tooling has become much easier to use, develop, and manage. But I suspect the larger driving force is that it’s (arguably) a cost center for an org. The burden of ensuring software quality can…
>The burden of ensuring software quality can be shifted to devs and PMs
Heck, the burden can be shifted to users! But then you might not have so many users in the future. :(