Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I don't think there is a reason to block the charter as currently proposed, however, I have a couple of questions. First an editorial one: should it be "HTTP/2 Revision" instead of "HTTP/1.1 Revision", or maybe just "HTTP Revision(s)"? Then regarding the HTTP and QUIC part. I found it a bit weird and probably also unecessary to mention review intentions in the charter. However, I guess we need at some point to discuss what to do with HTTP/3 after the QUIC group has finsihed their mapping document. Is the intention to do another re-charter then? Should we then maybe just wait until we have a better plan before we say anything about this in ther httpbis charter? The timing doesn't seem to be optional for me here but I assume the recharter is coming up because H2 is basically done...?