Erik MoellerAug 13, 2020

#mozilla has done a lot of good for the web, but the hybrid "for-profit owned by non-profit" model is and always has been a mistake.

You get the worst of both worlds -- a layer of nonprofit bureaucracy on top of for-profit business practices, compensation structures, and decision-making.

It reflects Mozilla's history, being born in the ideological swamp of hypercapitalist Silicon Valley, which frowns upon nonprofits, and which pursues profit, growth & "disruption" above all else.

Show threadJosef Davies-CoatesAug 15, 2020
@eloquence for profit company owned by a non profit charity is a very common pattern in the UK that seems to mostly work fine imho.
Show threadErik Moeller

@jdaviescoates

I can't speak for the UK situation -- I know the 501(c)(3) space pretty well, including the considerations under the US tax code. It's in this context that my criticism applies.

What motivates the choice of this legal structure in the UK, and how are those for-profit companies run? For example, do they tolerate inflation of executive compensation? Would be interested to read more about this before forming an opinion.

Aug 15, 2020 at 8:39pmWeb
Show threadJosef Davies-CoatesAug 17, 2020
@eloquence to be honest, it's a bit different from the Mozilla situation, I think having two separate entities is normally just because charities are not allowed to be political and to campaign for specific changes in policy etc. And so charities often have another wholly owned entity that is not constrained in this way to push for the changes they want to see. I could be wrong, but I think it's probably quite rare that they are proper commercial arms generating significant revenue.
Show threadJosef Davies-CoatesAug 17, 2020
@eloquence saying that, there are example like e.g. NEF consulting https://www.nefconsulting.com/ which are the commercial arm of https://neweconomics.org/ - but again, I think that's mostly about getting around the restrictions UK charities have on trading (in addition to the restrictions that have around being "political").