Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus, RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in various external events pretty much on a weekly basis, and I'd appreciate feedback in cases where I've done this well or less well.

Secondly, there may be times where the leaders might make statements that are suggestions for a future path to take. I do think that is important. The S in IESG, for instance. Often the status of these statements would be obvious from the text "I think that we should …" Again, feedback is appreciated if we're not being clear.

Thirdly, you need to understand that the context of the discussion or statements matters a lot from a practical perspective. If I talk to the press, I have very little opportunity to finesse what the final message is. If we talk to other organisations it is in practice difficult to arrange for simultaneous editing by a large group of people. Or get all nuances exactly as you want them. But the best model is to have whatever we say supported by earlier discussions. But I hope that we can use our own words. If we support open standards at the IETF or we have a working group on HTTP 2.0, I need to be able to say so.

In short, my hope at least is that I can speak about IETF matters that are decided & obvious openly, that I can make suggestions on future paths in some contexts, and that where we see a need to make new substantive consensus calls, we actually run them with the usual IETF process. And we appreciate feedback - there will be mistakes, for which I apologize. And I hope we all understand how important communication with the external world is.

Jari - speaking as himself only