If we're doing charts, you should probably superimpose a third: the average compensation of a CEO at a firm with a similar number of MAUs. Baker is probably underpaid, on average, for the size of Firefox's user base.
Does this mean that she's actually undercompensated? No. $3M/year is an obscene amount of money to pay anyone. But her public position is factually correct[1]: she could go somewhere else and make significantly more money, and it's up to the Mozilla board to determine whether that's a bluff or not.
Given how terribly Firefox has done under her watch, the board absolutely should call that bluff. If she quits, it's a win. If she accepts a lower salary, it's a win.
> she could go somewhere else and make significantly more money
With all due respect, that statement elicits a massive DOUBT reaction. It's the sort of thing that the C class spouts to justify their backscratching, but it's hardly a fact for most of them - and for Baker in particular, at this point.
In that case, her board should call her bluff. It's no problem to me if they do!
I wonder how much they'll need to pay her replacement.
The board of directors probably has a nice cozy salary ... and the downfall is going for more than a decade. They don’t care, why bother.
You just have to glance at their bio to get your answer: they have no idea what they are doing. The role is not compensated and clearly treated as a no-profit club.
The whole system of boards and execs is broken, generally speaking, but at MozCorp it looks more broken than average.
I think Mitchell should pay Mozilla. Not the other way around.
Not because she is a woman, because she is doing a terrible job.
Mozilla will stay afloat so Google can tell their “we have no browser monopoly” story.
Mozilla gets 1.2 BILLION$ for 3 years. Mind blowing ... and they handle a product as a side project. Unbelievable.