Her friends on the board. This isn't a joke, and you can easily look it up.

You say that as if its shocking.

Obviously the board sets ceo compensation. That is why boards exist.

Well technically they exist also to make sure the CEO does a good job.

Which in this case they're not doing.

> Which in this case they're not doing.

I'm pretty sure they are doing, it's just that there is a big disconnect behind Mozilla's actual objectives and their claimed objective.

Mozilla's actual objective is to provide an antitrust shield to Google by pretending to develop a good browser and get paid handsomely for this service.

Mozilla's objective is not to actually develop a good browser - that's not only an unnecessary expense but would also bite the hand that feeds.

It's not that the board sets CEO compensation that's bad, it's the personal connections they have and the observation that they appear to set compensation more based those personal connections with the CEO, not based on any measure of performance or anything..

I was assuming that was hyperbole since if the public actually had evidence of the board violated its fiduciary responsibilities they would be in legal hot water.

Fiduciary responsibilities can be construed very broadly, and as long as they can point to CEOs with similar salaries and haven't recorded themselves basically admitting to some illegal arrangement it's extremely hard to do anything about it unless you'd been a shareholder.

That may be true, but i also think its pretty unfair to claim, even just on the internet, that the board is inapropriately setting compensation based on a conflict of interest without some evidence its true or at least some evidence that said compensation is unusual.

I think the outrageous part of the claim is that the board is composed of personal friends, not that they set CEO compensation.

I don't think the comment you're replying to is 'shocked' by the detail you're talking about