[pcx]

1. They are doing it with substantially less budget than their competitors.

2. Developers shouldn't have to build software for the greater good by sacrificing their livelihood.

3. I am pretty sure many people building all this amazing tech can definitely get paid better in other places

4. These days when someone like Facebook fails to be bold, I would prefer to support someone like Mozilla who walks the talk.

[bzb3]

I don't think you get what I said. I said: if they stopped throwing money down the drain with the politised foundation and the executives stopped raising their salaries they wouldn't have to run ads and maybe they could even pay their engineers more money.

[woodruffw]

Can you elaborate on the ways in which you feel the Mozilla Foundation is politicized? Their advocacy page[1] feels incredibly vanilla: it emphasizes private communication, online safety, and collaboration with generally well-regarded groups like the EFF.

[1]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/advocacy/

[brmgb]

> 2. Developers shouldn't have to build software for the greater good by sacrificing their livelihood.

No one is talking about the developers. Mitchell Baker received $2,458,350 in 2018. That's up from $1,035,114 in 2014.

Have you seen the incredible results which justified this tremendous raise? Personally, I haven't.

[nojito]

Are you ignoring the negotiation with led to a great financial deal with Google in 2017?

His raise is 100% justified...unless your implying that any software dev pulling in 150k would be able to negotiate a deal like that.

[brmgb]

First that's her. Then I am going to entirely ignore yoir pointless jab at developers. The discussion was strictly about Baker 150% raise.

The 2017 deal was a 8% increase in revenue. That's a significant slow down of the increase trajectory of these deals. Meanwhile every other metrics were going down, most notably market share.

2017 also saw the rebranding and the Pocket deal go through. I still don't think it was worth a 150% increase.