Mozilla is a bizarre Matryoshka doll with a for profit company inside of the nonprofit. If anything, I believe this structure is responsible for Mozilla’s problems
It’s not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That’s not to say cost cutting isn’t a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.
But they have a strong history of paying a lot for CEOs that don’t have the right skills and connections. It’s not just this one, it’s a systemic issue for them.
I just wish one could donate to firefox development specifically. Then they could rid it of all the advertisement and tracking stuff.
Bless your heart.
They will do whatever they believe will maximize profit.
I thought mozilla was a non profit?
Mozilla is a bizarre Matryoshka doll with a for profit company inside of the nonprofit. If anything, I believe this structure is responsible for Mozilla’s problems
So the profit from the for-profit is passed up to the non-profit.
This is a really common organisational structure and not bizarre.
There’s loads of worthy criticisms to make of mozilla but this is not one of them.
Sure, whereupon the CEO alone can receive an 8 figure compensation package. That is not at all an issue to the viability of a non-profit.
It’s not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That’s not to say cost cutting isn’t a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.
But they have a strong history of paying a lot for CEOs that don’t have the right skills and connections. It’s not just this one, it’s a systemic issue for them.
On one hand you’re correct in that their CEOs haven’t been able to turn the situation around.
On the other hand it’s hubris to suggest that you know better than whoever is doing the hiring.