[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-discuss] suggestion to add visa details needed in the web-form itself



Hello Shirish

> On 7 Dec 2016, at 18:06, shirish शिरीष <shirishag75@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I am not a programmer, just a user.
> 
> I was going through the pain points and suggestions I had given
> (either publicly or/and privately) to improve debconf flow, maybe part
> of it could be implemented the upcoming year.
> 
> While it was too late then to improve the existing process, we
> probably have enough time to improve part of the web form for 2017 -
> 
> The only details required are -
> 
> a. Name of the prospective attendee -
> b. Passport Number -
> c. Address -


I’m not sure it will work.

1-

visa@ requires some mail exchange to establish the purpose of visa: There are many “random” requests from user who have absolutely no idea what it is Debian or Free Software. Such users check conference calendars and send request of invitation to all of them.

Additionally, on past we started the process in the web-interface and continued via email (for special needs, etc.), but it has show that it doesn’t work and it cause too much extra work on organisation side. People tend not to reply to emails, or just ignoring us. So we must let a lot of time before to close the “ticket”.

I would assume that for @visa it is the same. Attendees who requires special consideration (and a lot of work to find the real intent), really needs to make the first step manually, to show some minimal interest.

2-

Privacy. Things set in our conference system is readable by a lot of orga people. Visa is choose as a very small group, to handle such personal informations (like passport copies).

Adding such information will require much more effort to us, to implement finer permissions.


Note: now we don’t have anymore the problem: although the visa procedure is different every year (because of different country laws), now it will not add debconf-specific special fields. (but we were not so good either on other fields, unfortunately).

ciao
    cate



Reply to: