121–130 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you get almost 50% for management when the category including management was 39%? They spent $283,739,000 on salaries and benefits. $110,767,000 was in the management and general category.
You're right - my at a glance ballpark math put it closer to 50% than 33% but looks like it's on the other end of that spectrum. Can't edit now but... still high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do personally think tech companies [0] are better of if the CEO is a visionary techie instead of a lawyer. [0] Mozilla and others might not think they are a tech company but a activist plattform, so this is irrelevant to them from their perspective
When would you say were Mozilla's best years?
Not an Opera user, but from the sidelines it always looked like Opera was innovating more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right - my at a glance ballpark math put it closer to 50% than 33% but looks like it's on the other end of that spectrum. Can't edit now but... still high.
How much do comparable companies spend on management, administration, and marketing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's good that Mozilla is still there to provide an alternative to the proprietary browsers and is fighting for open Internet standards > aggressive political stance These two statements are at odds with each other. Mozilla whole purpose is inherently political.
I think the commenter is referring to the generic "rainbow coalition" language about helping disabled marginalized pregnant women in Africa. I don't think anyone would consider those things as bad, but I can see someone considering them a needless deviation from what (they perceive) Mozilla should be: a FOSS company. It strikes me personally as exceptionally cooperate, which is fine as long as it's not distracting fr…
What did they actually do here? Host a mastadon instance for gay people? How many of those people wouldn't have a chatroom with like-minded people if not for Mozilla's efforts? There are countless such spaces on the net already, for instance on traditional social media, on other fediverse instances, on discord or reddit, etc... so how much money did Mozilla spend creating yet another chatroom for LGBTQI+ people and how much real world impact did their effort actually have?
(Aside, saying 'individuals' instead of 'people' exemplifies the sort of swarmy weasel language used by cops, corporate PR, and other snakes putting on airs. Why do they do this, don't they know this kind of language betrays them for what they are? I guess they use this language to impress each other and don't really care that normal people perceive it as inauthentic.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, purge technical CEO for political reasons then replace him with MBA trophy politically correct CEO that takes home four times the pay while laying off engineers.
The Mozilla board appointed Eich CEO. He resigned after proving unable to manage predictable grass roots opposition. And he refused Mozilla's offer to remain in another role. Chris Beard didn't make 4x what Eich did. Mitchell Baker didn't replace Eich and doesn't have an MBA. What would make either of them a trophy CEO?
The record of Mozilla mis-management and CEO over-compensation after I left, about which I'm free to comment, is plain for all to see.
IMO Mozilla has turned into a wrong way since the shitshow with Brendan Eich.
Of course he doubled down on being on the wrong side of everything https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-ei...
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Brave’s stats, they get ~63M MAU. Firefox is now sitting under 200M. That’s a loss of >50M users in two years. Looks like Eich might have been Mozilla’s hidden force keeping the project on the rails.
Firefox's market share loss started years before Eich left.
Your obsession with me, evident in the need to well-ackshually almost every HN post that might be considered positive about my work, is frankly creepy. I've already been erased from Mozilla's site, a la Stalin-era pre-photoshop photo touchups. No worries -- let it go, the past is in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mozilla board appointed Eich CEO. He resigned after proving unable to manage predictable grass roots opposition. And he refused Mozilla's offer to remain in another role. Chris Beard didn't make 4x what Eich did. Mitchell Baker didn't replace Eich and doesn't have an MBA. What would make either of them a trophy CEO?
As far as I know, you weren't privy to confidential legal docs to which only I among the two of us could possibly have been a party, so you can stop making stuff up and cease the mindless parroting of incomplete and one-sided statements from 2014 Mozilla foundation crisis PR staff who never worked for me. The record of Mozilla mis-management and CEO over-compensation after I left, about which I'm free to comment, is…
Your vague complaints about Mozilla's statements stopped short of claiming they were false. And a legal agreement allowing 1 party to publish substantial falsehoods without recourse would be extraordinary. The most reasonable inference is Mozilla's statements were substantially true. Even if statements by both parties are assumed incomplete and 1 sided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When would you say were Mozilla's best years?
From the techie perspective, Mozilla didn't have "best years" I think. As a Mosaic/Netscape/FF user, I liked Mozilla for two things, adhering to standards compared to IE and being open source (the second being the reason I still use it today, not because of technology (I don't like tab management with 50+ tabs open e.G, never liked the environment implementation)). I don't consider Firefox a technological marvel, but…