They fired everyone working on it and completely abandoned it while giving the CEO a million dollar pay raise the same year.
When are we going to talk about how openly corrupt Mozilla has become? They clearly have issues at the top that need to be fixed for the betterment of web.
> When are we going to talk about how openly corrupt Mozilla has become?
It's routinely discussed on HN, whenever a topic about Mozilla/browsers comes up. The real question in my opinion is what can we do about it? Start an awareness campaign? Stop using Firefox? Stop donating to Mozilla?
I agree, but that's a very generous description of what Mozilla is doing. I'd say they're less "developing a competitive browser" and more "keeping an uncompetitive browser on life support to continue to profit off it".
> Mozilla has (many) problems, but it remains the main organisation fighting for the open web.
Well, it’s a different organisation from MS and Google anyway. I’m not sure how much I’d say they’re fighting for an open web, so much as I’d say they’re fighting for their slice of it. But the end result is more or less the same.
There is not much we can do ourselves, they are hurting themselves more than we can hurt them.
We don't want to punish the corrupt, we want to save Firefox from them. If would be great if some organization could fork Firefox and work with Servo to make a usable browser, but that's going to be really expensive, and the new browser will have to make a name for itself. Also the organization will have to do better than Mozilla in terms of corruption, which, again, is not a given when a lot of money is involved.
While very frustrating, it's just not reasonable at all to call that fraud or corruption. To make that case, you'll need to also make the argument that the CEO's remuneration is unreasonable to the given market rate; and more specifically, that you might be able to hire somebody else and achieve similar results for meaningfully less cash, and the CEO and board know this, and they're overcompensating intentionally.
Now: I agree that the pay is absurd! I'm quite willing to believe she's not worth it, too. But she's hardly the first CEO to have ridiculous pay; nor am I convinced the board is overcompensating her for corrupt reasons - it may simply be a difference of perspective. And - perhaps I'm wrong, and this pay is a going market rate and a hypothetical cheaper replacement would do worse - I really don't believe that, but to call something corruption I'd need to be rather sure of that and of their knowledge of it.
When are we going to talk about how openly corrupt Mozilla has become? They clearly have issues at the top that need to be fixed for the betterment of web.