First of all I would structure Mozilla as a software development organization rather than a social justice organization. Current Mozilla leadership seems to believe they're running a UN NGO, rather than stewarding a software project; and the software itself has suffered because of this shift in priorities.
Secondly I wouldn't worry about browser market share. Mozilla's place is to supply browsers, and Web and internet tools, that are open source and free of corporate control. Market share is something for for-profit corporations to worry about; under my Mozilla so many other things would take priority: security, standards compliance, maintainability (the goal would be a "long now" browser that can exist and be maintained even if the foundation itself goes away), portability across platforms. Even with 5% market share, if Mozilla offers a viable alternative to corporate browsers for those who need one, that's a strong niche userbase to keep going on.
The current Mozilla organization is too unfocused to reliably provide a viable alternative to Chrome. That may ultimately be what kills Firefox.
Secondly I wouldn't worry about browser market share. Mozilla's place is to supply browsers, and Web and internet tools, that are open source and free of corporate control. Market share is something for for-profit corporations to worry about; under my Mozilla so many other things would take priority: security, standards compliance, maintainability (the goal would be a "long now" browser that can exist and be maintained even if the foundation itself goes away), portability across platforms. Even with 5% market share, if Mozilla offers a viable alternative to corporate browsers for those who need one, that's a strong niche userbase to keep going on.
The current Mozilla organization is too unfocused to reliably provide a viable alternative to Chrome. That may ultimately be what kills Firefox.