[Congress] John Scudder's Block on charter-ietf-congress-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-congress-00-01: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-congress/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the final paragraph to be odd:

```
CONGRESS will not remain open simply because “in case” further work comes along.
```

(Nit, the "because" in that sentence isn't quite grammatical, I think you can
delete it without harm.)

Do you mean something like this?

NEW:
CONGRESS will close once all of its milestones have been completed.

If you don't mean that, what *do* you mean?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- A number of unfortunate linebreaks look to have been introduced in version
01. Please fix these before releasing for IETF review.

- I agree with Paul that the WG acronym seems likely to lead to future
confusion. I encourage you to find another; my recent experience with CAN ->
CATS is that it's not that hard to make this change even late in the game.

- Is there some specific reason for the use of the weak "can" instead of the
more intentional "will" in this paragraph?

```
The CONGestion RESponse and Signaling working group (CONGRESS) can review some
of the impediments to early congestion control work occurring in the IETF, and
can generalize transport in this area from TCP to all of the relevant transport
protocols.
```

This is your charter, after all. It seems to me that the word should be "will".
The same applies to

```
The working group
should consider a revision
```

ISTM "should" should be "will".