[ludwik]

I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point!

People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."

The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.

[crazygringo]

> it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."

Where are you getting this from? Nowhere is it suggested that a quick call will resolve it. You're inventing that. The actual text is:

> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.

This is the first step towards fixing something. Understanding it.

The idea that this is dismissive or unproductive is frankly absurd.

[AlexandrB]

It is dismissive.

"Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work"

"Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with".

The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.

This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.

[crazygringo]

> "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work"

I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned.

> The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all

Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal.

> the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.

This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.

[jahsome]

If I take the time to organize my thoughts and present them, I want the person to whom I'm presenting them to attempt to respond.

If I failed to make myself clear, at a minimum, presenting me with a list of things needing clarification is helpful for me to take the time to prepare.

"Hop on a call" is to me almost always shorthand for "I don't respect the issue enough to attempt to organize my thoughts ahead of time, but I'll ramble about it and let you pick my brain." Or in the most malicious cases, the other party is seeking plausible deniability.

In my experience it's not that way 100% of the time, but it's damn close.