Location: Seattle, WA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: C, C++, C#, Java, etc
Résumé/CV: On request
Email: threemiller3 -at- outlook.com
Looking for a part-time position, remote or local. Currently working at Microsoft @ Xbox for more than 10 years but looking to reduce hours due to family obligations. Part of the Xbox Live Compute (Azure game server hosting) launch team. Have worked on Xbox Live Services, Media Center, Windows Mobile and low-level embedded development.
Location: Seattle, WA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: C, C++, C#, Java, etc
Résumé/CV: On request
Email: threemiller3 -at- outlook.com
Looking for a part-time position, remote or local.
Currently working at Microsoft @ Xbox for more than 10 years but looking to reduce hours due to family obligations.
Part of the Xbox Live Compute (Azure game server hosting) launch team. Have worked on Xbox Live Services, Media Center, Windows Mobile and low-level embedded development.
I remember hearing that the structure they have, where a for-profit company (Mozilla Co) is owned by a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation) is highly unusual, which of course is going to attract scrutiny.
I don't think that's the issue. I think it is more of a case of whether or not the corporation and the foundation really are two separate organizations. Until the new director of the foundation arrived (Mark Surman), the foundation didn't really appear to do anything. To the IRS, this may have looked like the foundation was only a tax shelter for the corporation and not a real thing.
Now there's all this Drumbeat Festival stuff, etc.. coming out the foundation. Clearly they are trying to position themselves as a non-profit that advocates for the open web rather than just a company that gives away a browser. Owning a corporation that gives away a browser is just part of that cause. Hopefully that's how the IRS sees it.
Sadly, I don't think a lot of the foundation sponsored stuff really ever links up with anything happening on the corporate side. At least from the outside, it still looks like the corporation wags the foundation and not the other way around.
Edit: Yes, the foundation does own the corporation.
Spot on. For added weirdness, they've split the parts of the child company into another one called Mozilla Messaging that gives away Thunderbird.
I definitely agree that the corporation appears to wear the pants in the relationship, but there is still a lot of link up that is organized by the foundation, especially with the Mozilla developer network stuff.
IIRC the current structure is a response to the IRS audit. Originally, Google paid MoFo directly. Now Google pays MoCo, presumably MoCo pays taxes, and any surplus money can go to MoFo to be used tax-free.
Wow. After reading that, I'm not surprised that they want to audit the Mozilla structure. To summarize: the charity that owns IKEA is almost certainly just a tax dodge.
