Mozilla would be in a much less tough spot if they didn't keep rearranging their deckchairs every six months, and actually let us fund the browser team directly.

That is exactly the root of the problem. Yet they keep pretending its not.

Mozilla could be in a much better position if they focused more on that platform diversity instead of all those other types of "diversity". Alas, their multi-million dollar CEO - who is keen on using the platform for censorship purposes [1] - seems to crave the warm embrace of the diversity crowd over success in the marketplace.

I was there when the Netscape source was released and stated building the same day. I followed the burgeoning Mozilla project from the start and have used first Netscape, then Phoenix, then Firebird, then Firefox and every now and then Seamonkey ever since. I want there to be a strong competitor to Blink (the engine behind Chromium) but I think it has become clear that Mitchell is not the right person to lead this project, being more interested in politics and progressive causes than keeping the competition at bay. Mozilla needs to scale down its organisation and focus on those aspects, creating a number of interoperating projects and products which can compete with Chromium and the infrastructure - sync etc - behind it. Those projects should be platform-neutral and not reliant on central hosting, i.e. it should be possible to easily self-host a Mozilla auth/sync server. Given those conditions Mozilla could become a key component of the drive towards a more decentralised internet.

Get rid of Mitchell and her lackeys and use her copious remuneration (more than $3.000.000) to hire 10 to 20 full-time engineers, set them on this task and get that ball rolling.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...