Re: re-categorizing
Hello all!
ter wrote:
> I did not mean to subsume court administration under any of the proposed
> categories. I should have qualified my proposal - the categories are not
> an exhaustive list at all. Additional categories can, and should be
> added. I was looking for a few categories to sort the already listed
> packages into metapackages, and to prioritize this sorting so that I
> (and not necessarily others) can ignore certain packages. I wanted a
> narrower set of categories[1], so that they are unlikely to overlap too
> much with future additions, and also to allow me to drop the categories
> that intersect least with these narrower cateogries, and court
> administration is one. It will now be added back in, because you do not
> want to ignore it.
After your insights, I thought a bit further on the subject, and found
that maybe adding court administration makes too broad a scope for a
first Blend. This also started me thinking that maybe we should make a
distinction between which categories might be useful and wich ones
should go on the final Blend (thanks to Andreas' hints; I must reckon it
is sometimes hard for me to think on terms of packaging a distro, I
still view packages as useful resources -- the problems of being just a
user) ;)
> LoggingTrackingCalendaring_server
> LoggingTrackingCalendaring_lawyer
> LoggingTrackingCalendaring_paralegal
> LoggingTrackingCalendaring_support
I would think like Andreas, in that this would be a bit too much. I
liked his idea of having a common package on configuration. Of course, I
can only state general ideas on the subject, not being in any way expert
on packaging.
> Would you say "evidence management" is more important for what we in the
> US call "criminal law"? In any case, it got dropped mainly because I was
> thinking "civil law", and did not want to deal with it. So it will be
> added back to the proposal.
Maybe I'm wrong; I thought in the US you had a good deal on "evidence
management" within all fields of law; at home we gather a fair amount of
evidence on damages processes, labour law and other causes where there
is much factual material (although it might be difficult to have general
packages, due to the great differences on its collection between legal
systems).
On the other hand, I would like to comment on Andreas' assertion
(please, note that my comments are just from the point of view of the
end user)
<quote>
Well, IMHO every category that has at least a set of *existing*
packages which are needed in this field make sense.
</quote>
I refer again to my view that we might think in terms of
working-categories and categories-to-be-released, since we are still on
the initial stages of researching available software. Within the first
scope, I think it would make sense to search for packages meeting these
needs. On the other hand, I much agree with Andreas in that there should
be no 'vapourware' on the final Blend.
BTW, I have used some bibliography packages to manage scanned documents
& photos, in order to classify them, although I admit it wasn't quite a
satisfying experience.
Again, maybe Andreas is right, we shouldn't waste time searching for
rare packages.
> I think this is an enormous problem, and should be in a separate
> debian-search project, especially if that search giant were to free all
> that search software running on their Gnu/Linux systems. But maybe we'll
> be content with just the APIs.
I believe I'm asking for too much of a Blend ;)
>
> [1] Actually, "Case Management" covers the whole shebang of what
> distinguishes a law practice from ordinary business. I break out the
> other categories because many packages address only some aspects. So
> "Case Management" overlaps with every other category, and is meant for
> packages that do try to address the whole shebang.
Yes, I think you are right.
>
> [2] I just attended the "Law of the Commons" seminar yesterday, at which
> Eben Moglen(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen) spoke. It was an
> amazing lecture, and I hope to youtube it ASAP. I spoke with Eben about
> how he runs his law office. He had many provocative ideas, one being
> don't presume client/server without thinking about it.
>
I'm looking forward to your uploading! Please post the link as soon you
have it.
Ah, Elaine, thanks so much for the work you are doing! The wiki is
beginning to have real substance.
btw, your server seems to reject my e-mails, is it possible? Maybe I
should address them only to the list, isn't it?
Kind regards to all,
Barbara Figueirido
Reply to: