691–700 of 1001 posts
Isn't the obvious answer that CEO/executive pay should be tied more closely to performance? I don't root for anyone to lose their job, but in this case, it seems like the leadership of Mozilla is failing to lead them in the right direction. I don't see how that gets rewarded. If my performance metrics at work go down 85% - I'm probably getting fired. In this case, executive performance metrics should be closely tied…
If you are a For Profit company with share-holders, you can define performance as money gain by shareholders, i.e financial performance. This is always short term and it's the #1 cited reason why private long term investment has basically disappeared in the last 40 years. BigCo are managed with a 6m horizon and both eyes lock on the stock prices.
But if you are a non-profit how do you define performance ? How do you define Good ? What horizon do you set ?
And BTW : why do you think higher comp will lead to better work ? Was Einstein the most paid individual ?
I'm really not a big fan of Google's tracking-friendly browser. However, I hate Mozilla's hypocrisy even more, trying to act like the defendants of privacy, but dependent on mis-aligned cash. In the end, I chose Chrome as a protest against this hypocrisy.
Only on Hacker News will people argue that using the defaults is taking a moral stance...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of the details. While I 100% disagree with him on marriage equality I don't understand why he was driven from his role that has nothing to do with Proposition 8. Why did his freedom to support a cause with his own money result in him having to resign, seems anti-democratic to me.
I don't know, man. It's easy to get all abstract with phrases like "support a cause" but we live in a concrete world. Mozilla employs a lot of gay people. Prop 8 was viciously homophobic, both in concept and especially in execution of its campaign. How would you feel going to work knowing your boss's boss thinks you don't deserve rights?
[0] https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/08/obama-says-...
I'm two fences on Firefox doing "too many unrelated things" as the article suggests. Firefox OS has been pretty much unsuccessful, but it sort of made sense? It started to be made when Firefox was still on top on desktop, but mobile started eating its lunch; and it was clear that Firefox need to do something about it, or the future will be all Chrome and Safari, on the two locked-down platforms. Which eventually happ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The top bar moved to the bottom. There's an option to restore its rightful position at the top.
Thanks for the info. Since the capability is still there, maybe they could ask after the update: "would you like to give a try to our new UI?". A reminder a few days later would give the opportunity to commit to the new UI or revert to the old one. That would be IMO classier.
Another problem is that it's all very well to wish for an alternative revenue stream, but the reality is maintaining a competitive browser with an independent browser engine and the wraparound service regular users expect (accounts, updates, sync etc) costs hundreds of millions a year. Finding an alternative source for revenue like that is just really incredibly hard. Mozilla's been trying for a long time. Saying "Mozilla needs an alternative revenue stream" is just not helpful at all.
This article has many problems. One of the main problems is that the immediate reason for Firefox losing market share is totally outside the control of the CEO or anyone else at Mozilla: Google pouring billions into Chrome, both actual billions of dollars and similar resources "in kind", like free advertising on the world's most popular Web properties (i.e. Google's). The best CEO in the world can't magically come up…
The fuck is the CEO getting paid for, theN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get infuriated at someone for something they were mis-quoted at saying. See the original statement here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24565071
“That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to.“ Doesn’t seem to be much of a misquote. Poor Mitchell Baker. She’ll just have to suffer with her non-discounted salary.
Again, I don't agree with that since clearly the higher salaries are not attracting any talented executives either.