<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03-Dec-18 12:30 AM, Magnus Melin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:912697a9-fdad-d585-463d-4f0258f84e2b@iki.fi">On
02-12-2018 15:14, Matt Harris wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Our users disagree.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of course some may do that, and they may be vocal. It doesn't
change the fact that it's our job to do everything in our power to
upgrade them to a supported secure version.
<br>
<br>
If they opt downgrade to an unsupported version, then they are on
their own. Luckily the absolute majority upgrades.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Jorg is looking for a policy. So am I. What do I tell this guy?
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1242831">https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1242831</a><br>
<br>
Do I just give him the downgrade link he wants and then deal with
the lightning incompatibilities.until he struggles into a downgraded
version? Or do I tell him the Thunderbird council feels that it is
"our job to do everything in our power to upgrade them to a
supported secure version" and leave him unhappy. <br>
<br>
Really I think offering to upgrade him and making him aware of the
add-on incompatibility with a "not now" button is actually a good
compromise. We save countless hours of support time on topics that
are only created because the update process advises of
incompatibilities only after you can not back out of it. The
customer is happy and you would be meeting your obligation to do
everything to get him upgraded. Except updating his add-ons of
course.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
</body>
</html>