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