Huh, I’m surprised this wasn’t posted here already. I’ll re-share what I wrote earlier elsewhere lol:
Good riddance.
Anyone who thought Baker deserved to make over 3x more than, for example, the director of St. Jude Children’s Hospital or a huge number of directors of other non-profits — while Firefox adoption has never been lower — is insane.
The shameless greed among Mozilla execs lately is honestly disgusting and ruining them, to be quite honest. I’ll hope that someone new can shake things up and maybe change their direction, but I also fear that they’ve pretty much sucked Mozilla dry at this point and we’re past the point of no return now.
Yes, agreed, I don’t have any hope in Mozilla anymore.
Yet, the new CEO’s compensation package is undisclosed. It remains to be seen if this is just more of the same.
from: Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker quits, Laura Chambers steps up • The Register
Mozilla is not yet ready to detail the size of Chambers’s pay packet. “We are not disclosing Laura’s incoming salary at this time,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Register. “Please note that the salary for our leadership team is determined in conjunction with the Mozilla Corporation Board and our compensation strategies at the Corporation acknowledge we are competing for the best talent in a competitive labor market.”
As for the new CEO:
Chambers until now has been a member of the Mozilla board’s audit and compensation committees but will be leaving those committees in her new role.
Oh, I’m sure it’s ridiculously high 
One nice proposal to broadly tackle this problem is to make it a law that the highest-payed employee of a company can only earn ~100x the pay of the lowest paid.
OMG, literally communism, I know.
Kinda solves the problem, though … and is a huge incentive for the top brass to pay the grunts better while putting a stop to multi-million $ insanity wages.
While that is a good idea overall, even if the minimum payed full time employee was the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM legally allowed in at least 1 place in the US ($15080 / yr), that would still mean that under your proposal the CEO could still earn up to $1,508,000 / yr thus not actually solving the issue.
NOTE: I am assuming you mean ~100x the salary of the minimum payed full time employee
I’d go as far as to say 10x max, but that’s sure to upset people lol - if an org like Signal can work within that pay range though…
For long, I also was angry at mozilla and wanted them to change. Now I accepted. We have other solutions. Not perfect but so be it. Even if 100% privacy enthusiasts were using Firefox, it wouldn’t make a dent as it is peanuts of total market share.
Users just find Chrome better. Even only on Desktop which Google doesn’t control, Firefox is only at 7%.
Actually, this is still high. However, this will keep falling as Mozilla doesn’t offer as many features and suffers compatibility(Mainstream users critera).
If Mozilla doubled down on aggressive by default privacy settings then it will propose an alternative
(Source Desktop Browser Market Share Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats
It seems Firefox has a really hard time choosing a path.
On the one hand they have a VPN, an email relay service, a password manager, etc.
On the other hand they rely primarily on money from Google.
And without that money, well, how would they pay the CEO?
The number is definitely up for discussion, 10x might be a little bit too low, 100x might be too high.
A good CEO is working their ass off for the company, it’s definitely not a 9 to 5 job and comes with a lot of responsibilities so I guess they deserve a somewhat higher wage … just not dozens of millions.
I think 30x is roughly the sweet spot. You can have a grunt making 30k and the ceo making 900k. But this whole thought experiment is completely fanciful as I don’t know of a single country on this planet where labor can hold a candle to the political influence of money.