But firefox is developed by mozilla corporation, and donations to mozilla foundation doesn't fund firefox development. It goes to various advocacy/activism causes.
While executives earn money like at any company, most of their budget is spent on Firefox. 2% of the Mozilla Corporation revenue goes back to the Mozilla Foundation.
That downplays the remuneration of the principle Moz exec considerably AIUI. Mitchell Baker's remuneration from Moz was >$2M last I heard (a few years back [see eg https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html]), I can only assume it's more now.
There was also a report Baker had a >$1M "stipend" (uncharitably a bung) from Google, though I've been unable to refute/corroborate it.
The last report is from 2017 I believe, a year when Mozilla's revenue hit an all time high $562 million. I personally doubt her salary is as high, despite her promotion and I believe the overall decrease in amount of executives that accompanied it.
Seriously, "Chair pay is .5% of revenue" seems fair.
And I haven't heard this "bung" rumor but Mozilla's revenue and usage were shrinking long before Baker became CEO in late 2019.
Personally I find the idea of a charity begging for cash whilst simultaneously paying outrageously large amounts of money to execs to be immoral.
My limit on reasonable salary is 5 times the UK median graduate salary.
If ".5% of revenue is reasonable" surely there's no excuse not to increase salaries of everyone working for a company -- pay everyone ludicrous sums as each salary is small!
IIRC studies have shown exec salary doesn't correlate with increased company success, why should revenue come into it.