I think you overestimate the size of Mozilla Corp. As somebody mentioned above, the average CEO salary for a similar sized company is 800k.[1]

[1] https://chiefexecutive.net/ceo-and-senior-executive-compensa...

It would be a good idea to limit the comparison to Bay Area companies of that size.

Top few execs made above 800k but not 7 figures when I was there.

I guess I'm being a pedant about the way one might pursue the line of reasoning of comparing to other companies' pay, not its validity and overall applicability.

Mozilla constantly says it is not like “other companies”.

We were and are in the Bay Area, which is every year more expensive, but not 3x more.

It could be the 2.5m/year is justified, but not by market share up, new revenue lines, or both. What else? Competition? No, it is a custom fit job, chair of both boards and now even acting CEO. No competitive recruiting or chance for others to get the job, no real oversight.

Right.

They were not the CEO until a few months ago. They aren't even Executive Director of the Mozilla Foundation. They are the chair of the Mozilla Foundation board of directors.

I hope you are joking.

If someone said I'll do full-stack dev for 150k instead 400k at google, how would you take that question?

Sure, I'll do dev for 150k if they're fine with me remoting in from Germany. Currently earning a third of that as security consultant which is on average better paid than developer afaik. I could retire at 37 instead of 47.

You see, I'm fine donating money to a lot of places because I feel like I earn a lot (and I earn about 50k/year, not 150k and I never expect to earn 400k). The Internet Archive, Climeworks, OpenStreetMap, a local hackerspace, random sites or tools that I found useful, etc. But when I see that we need a hundred thousand average-sized donations to cover the cost of a single employee in a non-profit (what is even the definition of that word if not to not turn out profit to its owners?) then we're all just financing a pretty face instead of the product we love. One can argue all one wants about it being the market value or competitive offers or whatever, but if you are only in it for the money, Mozilla should not be the company for you. I'm not financing that. This is also why I don't donate to Wikipedia: the money doesn't actually go to Wikipedia the platform.

If the position wasn't that challenging to begin with, like this one, I'd hire them!

You know those meetings you hate? Quadruple them, add more customers and some unsavory financiers. Then sprinkle it with a bunch of business trips where you never get to see the city.

Think about that the next time you're thinking how much of a paycut you'd be willing to take if it meant you didn't have to talk to that guy every week.

>You know those meetings you hate? Quadruple them, add more customers and some unsavory financiers. Then sprinkle it with a bunch of business trips where you never get to see the city.

That argument is about "how hard/bothersome" the work is. That's not how compensation is set, however.

I, and most developers I presume, also don't like sweeping streets or cleaning gas station toilets (much more than business trips and tons of customer meetings), but nobody would pay millions to some gas station toilet attendant.

Grandparent said this is not a challenging position. That’s the comment I responded to.

Or just let the company tank, take a raise, and fire 70 people to make up the difference?

> There's hundreds of other engineers that can probably do as good of a job or better than him.

There are 2 parts to the job of CEO:

1. Sales

2. Incentive engineering (overcoming Goodhart's law)

There is very little about software development expertise that will help with either of those endeavors.

> There is very little about software development expertise that will help with either of those endeavors

Good point, we can pay them much less than developers. Having a warm smile and making informed decisions about ~things is something my mom can do and I assure you her hourly wage is less than a developer's.

And the first industrial grade confidence trickster (and when you're managing $500 million you tend to get the cream of the crop going after you) will take her (and her company) for all she's worth. Having seen people who are great at people skills and those who are not there is a world of difference.

There probably are, but that's not the issue when recruiting CEO.

You have to find a person with a relevant experience. That's the real bottleneck. Number of people available who have enough track record to be considered to become CEO in a tech company with half a billion in revenue and over thousand employees is small, those who are willing to work for less pay is really small.

Running a company such as this is like living in a shark tank. Powerful, convincing people are going to lobby you to do what they think you ought to be doing. See the recent privatization of .org for how things can go wrong. You need the right person at the helm with strong convictions.

>There's hundreds of other engineers that can probably do as good of a job or better than him.

Says only someone who hasn't seen what happens when the average IC is forced into management.

IC? (Merriam-webster doesn't come up with anything useful and I only know it as integrated circuit or intercity train)

Individual Contributor. US businesses-speak for "not a manager".

It's corporate-speak: Individual Contributor (aka not management).

Individual Contributor

Won't know until we try =)

than her