Re: List contains more SPAM than content
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:41 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 05:26:28AM -0300, Barbara Figueirido wrote:
> > On the other hand it is also true that we non-technical
> > users/would-be producers do need technical support, and technical
> > people don't seem quite interested on making lawyer's lives better or
> > funnier (maybe people don't like lawyers as much as doctors ;) ).
> Well, that's the point of all this Debian Pure Blend stuff: Bringing
> together techies and non-techies - at least this is my understanding of
> the Debian Med project and there it works to some degree. Non-techies
> try to pronounce their ideas and needs and techies try to implement it
> into solid Debian packages to make sure the non-techies just have an
> option of "one-click-installation" instead of fiddling around with
> strange installation instructions etc. In several talks I have a slide
> about the role of Debian developers: We are the missing link between
> upstream developers and users and in a Blend we just focus an a specific
> user group. But we actually need the input of users which is obviosely
> not happening here on this list.
I very much agree that debian-lex can be that link, but IMHO, we are
very far from being able to provide that "one-click-installation" in any
application area of law. That may not be a disadvantage, or even
relevant (see next paragrash)- all the more reason to bring the techies
together with the non-techies - seems to be a recurring theme here.
Let's say we have inducted all the currently listed Debian-lex packages
(or more) into the blends framework, produced a CDD live CD/DVD, and
managed to get them into the hands of some lawyers, what would they do?
I actually asked this question. The response is, they would give them to
their support staff to try out. Puzzling this one out may give some
clues as to how to approach debian-lex somewhat differently. I don't
have an answer, yet.