> "Non-profit" doesn't always mean "charity". It's a tax designation reserved for organizations that are dedicated to public good. It doesn't imply that the people working there aren't top-tier professionals who should command high salaries.
Mozilla behaves like a charity, shaking down its users for donations that are tax-deductible. The Salvation Army has $3.75 billion in revenue and its Chief is paid $238,009[1].
> You say that the programmers are paid below market rate -- so are the executives. A CEO of a company with $314M in revenue will rarely make that little in the for-profit world.
CEOs pay is absolutely out of control[2], and using that as a baseline for what you think non-profit CEO salaries should be is absurd. Do you seriously think it would be that difficult to find people as equally competent as Baker and Eich to do their jobs for $100k? It's not like Mozilla is winning anyway; its flagship product has been losing market share for years.
> There's a lot of room for debate here, but calling the situation disgusting is over-simplifying it.
No it isn't. Mozilla's success, or what's left of it, is due to the programmers, designers, testers, and users who contribute to it. Fat cat managers shouldn't be getting rich off of their (often unpaid) labor. Taylorism has no place at an open source software foundation.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_Salvation-A...
[2] http://www.epi.org/publication/pay-corporate-executives-fina...
Mozilla behaves like a charity, shaking down its users for donations that are tax-deductible. The Salvation Army has $3.75 billion in revenue and its Chief is paid $238,009[1].
> You say that the programmers are paid below market rate -- so are the executives. A CEO of a company with $314M in revenue will rarely make that little in the for-profit world.
CEOs pay is absolutely out of control[2], and using that as a baseline for what you think non-profit CEO salaries should be is absurd. Do you seriously think it would be that difficult to find people as equally competent as Baker and Eich to do their jobs for $100k? It's not like Mozilla is winning anyway; its flagship product has been losing market share for years.
> There's a lot of room for debate here, but calling the situation disgusting is over-simplifying it.
No it isn't. Mozilla's success, or what's left of it, is due to the programmers, designers, testers, and users who contribute to it. Fat cat managers shouldn't be getting rich off of their (often unpaid) labor. Taylorism has no place at an open source software foundation.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_Salvation-A...
[2] http://www.epi.org/publication/pay-corporate-executives-fina...