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

Re: re-categorizing



Server/desktop might come into play where an office is doing some sort of eDiscovery and the documents need to be in a database somewhere for more than one attorney to view/review.

Plus, there's print servers, phone servers (might as well throw Asterix or something into it, no?), general file servers, etc.  An office that is bigger than a solo practitioner would need these, I think.

Of course, all that could be "version 2" while the focus remains on a usable desktop environment.

K

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Barbara Figueirido <barbara@bariloche.com.ar> wrote:
Hello all!

I support your re-categorization proposals, Elaine!

I would like to add a couple of things, if you don't mind.

- I would keep the distinction between "legal office administration" and
"court administration", since though similar in their needs, there might
be some nuances that make them somewhat incompatible, I would think (I
am not totally sure of this, maybe some exchange is necessary on this
subject). I think that a 'legal' Blend should cater to both kinds of uses.

- I totally agree with you in that the server/desktop categorization
might not be very useful for a law office.

- I would like to propose a sub-category for "evidence management"? Or
is it within document processing (I personally would think of both as
separate categories)?
(Not that there is much soft around for this item that I know of -at
least FOSS-, but I'm sure it's an area where the need will arise if it
isn't there yet).

- Your objections regarding the "legal research" category are quite
valid, but I think that law offices might well try to centralize local
court decisions, so I would consider making a sub-category around the
idea of "precedents collection", since it seems to me that regardless of
the legal system you are working with, there will always be a need for
managing the enormous amount of information on legal precedents (roman
systems do also rely quite a lot on precedents, although they do might
not have the binding force they have in common law systems).  In some
places, specialized legal information providers are quite expensive and
unaffordable to small offices in an updateable form, so they might want
to manage their own in-house collection.

Anyway, your proposals are great, even without these additions, you took
a lot of trouble rearranging categories, I like very much the focus on
"entities".

Kind regards to all,
Barbara Figueirido



ter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After reviewing the current categories and their packages, I have been
> working on a different decomposition, so that the blends metapackages
> would make more sense. The categories I am proposing are:
>
> * Case Management
>   * Logging/Tracking/Calendaring
>   * Accounting/Billing
>   * Document Processing
>
> The rationale is here: http://wiki.debian.org/TElaineR/ReCategorizing.
> Comments and suggestions are appreciated.
>
> Elaine
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lex-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org




--
In Vino Veritas
http://rubbernecking.info

Reply to: