Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla lays off 70

techcrunch.com

641–650 of 962 posts

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that marriage law is still bigoted against pedophiles.

Keep in mind that marriage law is still bigoted against pedophiles. Is that to say you are equating homosexuality with pedophilia?

I'm commenting on your use of the term "bigotry" for the act of thinking some act is immoral, like gay sex, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Maybe you could clarify when it's bigotry and when it isn't. (Let me guess: everything you agree with isn't bigoted, and everything you disagree with is bigoted.)

My understanding is the SCOTUS ruling was about whether it was lawful, not whether it was bigoted. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#642
post #618
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a pretty clueless layoff, I guess I expected better from Mozilla than usual corporate derp. If there was truly no dead weight, surely the management could have scaled back their own comp for misdirecting the company? Very few people understand what it means to be a leader in corporate world.

> for misdirecting the company? As someone who has been using Netscape before even Internet Explorer exists, and followed all of its development through to Firefox till recent few years. I am not surprised. At first you give them benefits of doubt, because their ideal were good. Then it happened again, again, and again. >Mozilla Corporation (as opposed to the much smaller Mozilla Foundation) said it had about 1,000 e…

What's the alternative? Google? Not really better even if this disappoints about Mozilla.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#643
Look at the changes to the executive team at Mozilla in 2017 and 2018 if you want to see the root of the problem.

Look at the changes Chief People Office Michael D'Angelo introduced (after leaving Pinterest), especially the multi-tier bonus system that crystallized the executive hierarchy and made ironclad the gap between Mozilla leaders and the Mozilla proletariat. How much does he make?

Ask yourself- what value or improvement did Chris Lin, VP of Mozilla's horrid IT, hired from Facebook, bring to the company? And look at his overpaid group of Directors, who do not have a single win between them that improved Mozilla's bottom line. Why did they hire a leader from Facebook? Were they trying to sink the ship?

Ask yourself- with all of Mozilla's failed marketing initiatives, why has the CMO never been held to account?

There was great hope that Mitchell Baker would return and clean house where it was needed, starting with many of the execs. This layoff, with so far no indication of leaders being held to account, is a sign that things are not going to improve.

It's a shame, because the people of Mozilla are the finest people you could ever work with. They don't deserve this leadership. The rank and file at Mozilla are amazing, though some of the best were let go today.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#644

> “You may recall that we expected to be earning revenue in 2019 and 2020 from new subscription products as well as higher revenue from sources outside of search. This did not happen I don't want subscription garbage, and I don't want Firefox advertising stuff to me. However, I have no idea how I'd try to fund Mozilla when most of their work is on a product that they give away for free. I can't imagine that grants fr…

Why not something like the Linux Foundation?

Stop all the marketing and the nonsense advocacy, focus on developing a browser, get other companies to fund development. It's in the interest of quite a few vendors to have a good, neutral browser.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#645
post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is a game they could never win, if they try to compete against google on marketing. Where Mozilla could have the upper hand, is the idealistic community. They would do the marketing, if FF would align with their goals ... which seems to be more and more a problem. I was really alienated when FF tried to sell me advertisement as a feature some time ago. Those moves destroy trust. "Ah, so just another bullshit…

If you believe that Mozilla has no chance in the marketing game against Google, then maybe this is proof of Google's monopoly position and maybe this will convince you it is time for antitrust action against Google.

I think a lot of us came to that conclusion years ago, and that's why we want to like Firefox. Unfortunately I have not yet ascended to my rightful throne as emperor of earth, so I cannot simply snap my fingers and command the dismantling of Google.

If Mozilla were throwing resources at a legal battle against Google, I'd be skeptical but interested. But marketing? I've never seen a paid advertisement for Firefox. Where the hell is that money even going? They should have purged their entire marketing staff after that "Mr Robot" advertisement debacle, but instead there was little other than half-hearted apologies.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely impossible to say. One possibility would be "proud that the man she married stood up for what he believed in"

Baker's post is utterly dehumanizing. She could've talked about his resilience in fighting cancer for 18 years or his fervor for free software. She could've talked about the actual work product he produced over 20-ish years at Mozilla and how it helped move the platform forward. Instead, more than just condemning his religious beliefs, she said that he didn't understand ambiguity and that she spent his entire career…

> She could've talked about his resilience in fighting cancer for 18 years

"Gerv’s work life was interspersed with a series of surgeries and radiation as new tumors appeared. Gerv would methodically inform everyone he would be away for a few weeks, and we would know he had some sort of major treatment coming up."

> or his fervor for free software. She could've talked about the actual work product he produced over 20-ish years at Mozilla and how it helped move the platform forward.

"Gerv was a wildly active and effective contributor almost from the moment he chose Mozilla as his university-era open source project. He started as a volunteer in January 2000, doing QA for early Gecko builds in return for plushies, including an early program called the Gecko BugAThon. (With gratitude to the Internet Archive for its work archiving digital history and making it publicly available.)

Gerv had many roles over the years, from volunteer to mostly-volunteer to part-time, to full-time, and back again. When he went back to student life to attend Bible College, he worked a few hours a week, and many more during breaks. In 2009 or so, he became a full time employee and remained one until early 2018 when it became clear his cancer was entering a new and final stage.

Gerv’s work varied over the years. After his start in QA, Gerv did trademark work, a ton of FLOSS licensing work, supported Thunderbird, supported Bugzilla, Certificate Authority work, policy work and set up the MOSS grant program, to name a few areas. Gerv had a remarkable ability to get things done. In the early years, Gerv was also an active ambassador for Mozilla, and many Mozillians found their way into the project during this period because of Gerv... As Gerv put it, he’s gone home now, leaving untold memories around the FLOSS world."

> Instead, more than just condemning his religious beliefs, she said that he didn't understand ambiguity

"He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me."

> she spent his entire career trying to nurse him toward wrapping his head around the general concept of abstraction and nuance.

Where does it say this?

> I don't know, but somehow I doubt that the widow of this principled husband and father, who battled cancer for 18 years and worked hard to keep food on the table until the very end, feels anything good about Baker's post.

I guess that would depend on whether they skipped over the same parts you did.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#647

Only in fairy tale land does CEO/Executive compensation reflect performance.

Many CEOs derive a significant portion - often even the majority - of their compensation from performance-based bonuses. Compensation not only reflects performance, it is directly tied to it.

The price of oil goes up, and all the oil company executives get bonuses (it sounds silly, but this genuinely does happen).

A lot of these compensation packages are well intended, but they aren't without problems. People who make bad decisions often get performance bonuses regardless.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salary of top executives has gone way up in the past 20 years or so across industries, and largely without relation to company performance.

Nice deflection. I'm a founder of mozilla.org, Mitchell joined 8 months after, we worked closely for 15+ years. She set the salaries with board approval, always made somewhat more than I did, I never complained. Neither of us was making more than high six figures, until after I left. Something changed, and it is not generic to "industries". No excuses!

I didn't intend for it to come off as a deflection, though I see that it would be easy to read it that way.

I agree that something changed at Mozilla, but I've seen it get justified at other previously reasonable organizations with excuses like "everyone else is doing it," or "This is still below-market rate for C-level talent." The fact that it's happening everywhere doesn't make it less nauseating.

[edit]

Mitchell could drop her salary to a "mere" 6 figures and lay off 7 fewer people, but you hardly ever see executives do things like that.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#649
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person we're talking about is Mitchell Baker, who has spent over 20 years contributing to Mozilla, including years as a volunteer. She has been on Time's 100 most influential people list. She has directly authored many foundational pieces of Mozilla and (arguably) the internet. She is the founding CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, which pays her paycheck from its ~$500M in revenue. Mozilla Corp is the highly-profit…

Am I the only one who thinks no single person should be earning more than $1 million per year? especially if they are working for a non-profit?

you're not the only one.

doctors without borders / msf pay their execs org non-profit salary. Chief makes less than 150k. 9 next highest paid makes around 100k.

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/81-doctor...

Compare that to red cross or others.

More prestigious the org is, the less reason there should be to pay egregious salary.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's the employees who are really driving the company strategy and focus... the board needs to fire the everliving fuck out of the leadership (and optionally find the nexii of communication at the employee level and promote them). It's quite literally leadership's primary job to set the strategy and focus of the company. It's what they're being paid to do. If they aren't doing that, they need to be let go.

It's a balance. Leadership does have a role here (and in some organizations like the military it is more strictly top down). But in most companies leadership can at most set goals, incentive behavior, and approve budgets and projects and it's ultimately up to the employees to implement and adapt strategy

>>But in most companies leadership can at most set goals, incentive behavior, and approve budgets and projects and it's ultimately up to the employees to implement and adapt strategy

No, leadership isn't exactly a glorified supervision layer.

I've known of a case where a director refused to promote an employee, the employee escalated the case to HR. The case got investigated and director in his defence said the employee couldn't be promoted as he was doing the same task for months.

To the director's horror he was let go for not seeing why the employee had not automated his work. And why he hadn't proactively worked with stake holders to improve productivity. So as far as the employee was concerned he had done what he was asked to, and despite bringing up his promotion issue in 1-1's the managers hadn't told him anything about his work at all. And instead lauded for the good work and asked him to continue.

The decision was right because the next director who came in got this done.

The job of any who sits at the top is to take a high level view, and move things in the positive direction. Approving leaves, budgets and memos just happens to be a side gig at those levels. The real job is to make progress happen.

Post reply on HN