[quesera]

Right, but the argument is that the CEO person and salary are mismatched, I think -- not necessarily that the salary is inappropriate.

A CEO needs to earn their keep. Baker does not, and somehow keeps getting increases while there are zero metrics on which the organization is improving.

[BrendanEich]

Not complaining at all, but why should a for-profit, wholly-owned subsidiary of a nonprofit pay 10x what I make at Brave? Mitchell’s answer was because she could make $3M elsewhere. True or not, that doesn’t settle the matter unless Mitchell is the only possible CEO ever. Perhaps she is, in the scenario where Mozilla has to collapse back into a nonprofit due to Firefox losing too much share. She could sell Firefox to Private Equity, as a prior CEO wanted to do. These are the hard decisions that only a long term leader might make, and sell to enough folks in the community. Nothing looks easy from here. But the minimum price of a CEO is not $3M/year, I can tell you that!

[quesera]

A CEO's pay is often a function of the organization's budget.

Mozilla has a huge budget, so it's not terribly surprising that some well-paid person is in charge of it.

(Somehow Mozilla's CEO's pay has managed to increase while the organization's budget has been decreasing. This is inexplicable and unjustified.)

Regardless of how well- or over-paid Mozilla's CEO is, though, she is not adding comensurate value to the organization, and I invite her to earn $3MM elsewhere starting tomorrow.

OTOH, if tomorrow she announces The Mozilla Fund, and reveals that they've been accumulating excess budget (tens, hundreds of $MM/yr) into a permanent trust that will support perpetual development of Firefox and related technologies at a secure withdrawal rate -- and that all has been done legally from an accounting and tax perspective, and that we've all just overlooked it in the annual reports ... then I nominate her for Chairperson Emeritus who can keep her stupid salary, and hire a clueful product person as CEO.