[jameslk]

It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.

I usually do the same thing when the medium is text and someone is not happy. Tone conveys a lot of useful information. Even better if you can see a person and their body language.

I don’t think the cynical view of the staff person’s intentions is fair, though I don’t know the person’s history nor do I have dog in this fight.

[npinsker]

The request by itself is fine; it's not about that, but about the nuance within the word choice and what it conveys.

It appears the OP is an incredibly valuable community member that has been deeply affronted and hurt by the recent changes. Any attitude other than "I'll move heaven and earth to make this right for you" will likely feel insufficient. Even failing that, I'd at least expect an attitude of "I really, REALLY don't want this to ever happen again". I see neither.

The staff member comes off as robotic because there's zero conciliatory tone or admission of wrongdoing at all in the message. "I'm sorry you feel this way [about the workflow]" puts the onus on OP, and doesn't convey a hint of remorse -- even "I'm sorry our workflow has intruded on yours" would of course be better. "Would you be interested" should be "Would you be willing"; "to talk about this further" could be "so we can better understand what went wrong".

These nuances matter a lot when people are offended. If they're this incompetent at communication over text, I don't know that I'd bother with a video call.

[jameslk]

Fair point. The non-apology is not helping I agree and would have been better left off altogether. I’m guessing this staff person is not very high level and just trying to help and connect the right people. That is, if you’re not very high up in an org, you may not feel you have the authority to speak on behalf of the org as a whole. I don’t have much context to know.

Mozilla could of certainly handled it better as an org, that I would agree with.

[N_Lens]

The fact that your comment is needed to explain these basic nuances says something about the emotional skills of HN readership.

[tremon]

Please keep in mind that not everyone here speaks corporate English as their native language.

[nativeit]

We’d all be better off if nobody did.

[jjaksic]

"Hop on a call" is also tone-deaf.

[metabagel]

I think the response is completely professional and appropriate. It's a request for more information.

[embedding-shape]

> It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.

It can be, but maybe not when you're not actually replying to anything the other person wrote. The person who experienced the issues and chose to leave made a pretty clear list of "here is the exact reasons the bot is unbearable for us". This person who opened up the conversation is doing so via text, at least providing some sort of answer initially via the same channel before trying to get them to jump into a private call could have maybe came across a bit more empathic and collaborative.

[nomel]

How about something a human might write, like “Let’s talk and see if we can change things so you don’t have to leave, and so we don’t lose more people.”

[johnnyanmac]

>get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.

Depends on if I'm in a one party state. I believe California is. I want every interaction on record.