Re: [Congress] Paul Wouters' Block on charter-ietf-congress-00-00: (with BLOCK)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

> On 15 Mar 2023, at 17:04, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-congress-00-00: 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 see a lot of bullet points in the charter, but none of that matches up to the
> milestones, which isn't a real milestone as it is 1 entry predicting when
> everything should be completed. Can this be split up better?

I kind of explained it in response to Alvaro’s comment. This charter tries to be clear about the scope with all those bullets and expects those work would come in the life time of the WG. All those scope bullets are results of discussions with the community and there are interests to work on those as those are related topic to congestion control. Currently the main deliverable of this WG is the bis document and that is in the milestone. The charter also says the working group is not a long standing working group and if the there is no work adopted and deliverables are done (right not only the bis work) then it will be closed. I think this is fine for starting the working group and I am not aware of any requirements on a complete list of milestones to start a working group. 

Having said that if you have suggestions on how that split may look like, feel free to create a PR at https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter .


> 
> I think the name "congress" is very misleading and will cause needless
> confusion with being about venue / meeting issues. Can this still be changed?

:-). I am not sure of the confusions and misleads. is there any working group or work in progress in IETF that would conflict? We have discussed the names a bit and there are alternative proposals. But seem like “congress" captures the essences best here.

here is the email discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/bsA120vdmTYsjc_4wdGa9O6iUWs/
here is the name alternatives : https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues/18 

//Zahed