Ah ok, that makes sense. The article was a bit confusing because it keeps talking about the Mozilla board, which in an unqualified sense to me implies the top-level board controlling the entire Mozilla organization. Whereas they seem to mean the board in charge of its main revenue-producing subsidiary... which is important, but not the board ultimately in charge. I realize "not ultimately in charge" doesn't necessarily mean "doesn't exercise practical power", but the real top-level Mozilla board could ultimately choose to replace them if it were sufficiently unhappy with the state of things, so I don't see this board as The Mozilla Board, in the sense of the people who are responsible for stewarding my donations and ensuring that the charitable mission is met.