Conversation

Notices

1. Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 15:56:00 JST Aral Balkan

   in reply to

   • Floppy 💾
   • George Lund
   • Job

   @georgelund @vanderZwan @floppy Where “historically” means currently, to the tune of half a billion dollars a year.

   • George Lund (georgelund@urbanists.social)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 15:56:01 JST George Lund

     in reply to

     • Floppy 💾
     • Job

     @vanderZwan @aral @floppy do I think there might be cases where an organisation needs to be smaller, but executive pay must rise to be competitive? Yes actually, but I haven't read the foundation's minutes so no, I don't know if it was justified in that case. And Firefox is huge and certainly historically has had Google cash. It makes sense for them to use donations in any way that best fulfils their non-profit objectives.

   • Job (vanderzwan@vis.social)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 15:56:06 JST Job

     in reply to

     • Floppy 💾
     • George Lund

     @georgelund
     I guess you haven't heard of that time in 2020 when Mozilla laid off 25% of its employees, but still raised the pay of upper management that was already in the millions?

     Also, how do you justify the fact that it's not possible to directly donate to the development of the Firefox browser, but only to Mozilla?

     @aral @floppy

   • George Lund (georgelund@urbanists.social)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 15:56:07 JST George Lund

     • Floppy 💾

     @aral @floppy the salary thing is controversial but there's an ownership structure that can hold management to account and a mission that is not about fidiciary duty to shareholders. That seems OK to me. You aren't gonna develop a secure Web browser without paid staff, that's for sure.