Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] On harms

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Ken Stubbs wrote:
+1

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sender: * owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Date: *Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:11:38 +0200
> *To: *<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *[gnso-vi-feb10] On harms
>
> Folks,
> This discussion about ranking harms and who is qualified to decide the 
> ranking is very interesting, but I wonder whether we should not start 
> by populating an initial list of harms.
> I would recommend to start in plain brainstorming mode, i.e. to 
> suggest items to add to the list, and in an initial phase do not argue 
> whether the item proposed by a colleague is valid or important, or not.
> Moreover, I would like to recommend that we list harms (or potential 
> harms) originating by VI, and harms (or potential harms) originating 
> by the current separation.
> Once we have this initial list, we can start the discussion on which 
> items are more or less relevant.
> Just a suggestion.
> Cheers,
> Roberto