> though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company
That's what I meant by underpaid. It's well known that Mozilla pays below-market rate salaries. Instead it deceptively uses its supposed non-profit status (actually a for-profit owned by a non-profit shell) to motivate people to take a pay-cut by working there, meanwhile Baker and a handful of others at the top are getting rich (even by Bay Area standards) off their under-compensated, altruistically-minded labor.
Exactly! Why are Mitchell Baker and other execs at Mozilla being rewarded for lack-luster performance with nearly $1 million a year in compensation, meanwhile the actual programmers that toil on Mozilla's products go underpaid or even unpaid?
tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for their mismanagement.
That's what I meant by underpaid. It's well known that Mozilla pays below-market rate salaries. Instead it deceptively uses its supposed non-profit status (actually a for-profit owned by a non-profit shell) to motivate people to take a pay-cut by working there, meanwhile Baker and a handful of others at the top are getting rich (even by Bay Area standards) off their under-compensated, altruistically-minded labor.
Disgusting.