Summary

  • On 10 September, the IAB opened a survey on the capabilities, attributes and expectations it should consider when selecting a future Independent Submissions Editor. Responses close on 11 October.
  • The survey is anonymous, invitations cross several IETF, IRTF and RFC Series channels, duplicate invitations are possible, and forwarding is encouraged. Those choices widen access but do not create a stable denominator or representative electorate.
  • RFC 8730 already supplies six broad qualification areas and assigns selection to the IAB after community input. The survey can clarify or extend that baseline; response frequency cannot replace the IAB’s judgment.
  • A public interpretation rule should record recruitment limits, analysis method and a criterion-by-criterion change log before future candidates are assessed, while keeping raw responses and personnel material protected.

The easiest result to publish may be the weakest

When the IAB survey closes on 11 October, one number will be immediately available: how many forms were completed. It will be tempting to place that total at the top of any account of community interest. In this consultation, however, a response count has no natural denominator.

The IAB is sending invitations to the IETF and IRTF announcement lists, the Working Group Chairs list, RFC Interest and the RFC Series Working Group. It is also contacting people who have an active Internet-Draft or who published through the Independent Stream during the past fifteen years. The notice apologises in advance to anyone who receives the invitation more than once. Recipients may forward the link to others in the broader RFC and Independent Stream audience.

This is sensible outreach. The role touches authors, reviewers, stream governance and the wider technical community, not a closed membership roll. But the same design means the number of unique people invited is not visible from the public record. List memberships overlap. A forwarded link has no fixed outer boundary. An “active Internet-Draft” class and a fifteen-year author class identify experience, not equal-sized constituencies.

The survey is run in anonymous mode, and the announcement says it does not collect data such as IP addresses. That protects candour and narrows unnecessary collection. It also makes a public claim about a unique response rate especially hard to justify. Multiple invitations are not evidence of multiple submissions, and anonymity is not evidence of weak controls. The narrower point is that neither the numerator nor the population should be made to carry an electoral meaning the design was not built to supply.

The announcement from IAB Chair Dhruv Dhody draws that line explicitly. Responses will inform the IAB as it develops criteria. The survey is not a vote on the Independent Stream, and appointment remains an IAB decision. A useful results report should preserve this distinction instead of quietly reintroducing a plebiscite through percentages.

There is already a six-part baseline

The future criteria are not being written on a blank page. RFC 8730 describes six desired qualifications: broad technical competence; deep familiarity with the RFC Series; ability to build advisory and review arrangements; standing inside and beyond the IETF technical community; editorial and English-language skill; and the ability to operate in a multi-actor environment where authority and responsibility are divided.

The same document gives the ISE concrete responsibilities. The office maintains the technical quality of the Independent Submission stream, reviews and processes submissions, forwards approved work for production, develops the scope of the stream, handles errata, coordinates with wider RFC Series policy and supplies requested documentation and statistics. It may form an advisory board. The IAB selects the individual after community input has been collected.

Those provisions create a baseline against which survey-derived change can be shown. A future criterion might clarify what “broad” technical perspective now means. It might describe the experience needed to commission reviews in a more diverse field, work with the current RFC Editor model, or manage uneven volunteer demand. It might decide that an existing phrase remains sufficient. Each is a legitimate outcome; none is self-explanatory.

Without a comparison, the public will see only a polished future call for candidates. It will not know whether a requirement came from RFC 8730, current operating experience, survey responses, the IAB’s own judgment or a new institutional dependency. The survey would then be visible as an event but invisible as an influence.

That is why the right unit of disclosure is not a ranked list of popular traits. It is a change log from the governing baseline to the criteria actually used.

The office protects a publication path, not a brand

The criteria matter because the job is not ceremonial. The RFC Editor’s current explanation says Independent Stream documents are outside the official processes of the IETF, IAB and IRTF. They do not require or carry community consensus, and they are not standards or best practices. The stream can publish technical experience, vendor-specific protocols, critiques of IETF processes, ideas not ready for standardisation, historical material and even humour.

RFC 4846 treats that independence as a feature. A separate publication route allows material of value to enter the RFC Series without pretending that the IETF approved it. The ISE makes publication decisions for individual submissions, supported by reviewers and an editorial board, and the IETF conflict review protects against confusing an independent document with standards work.

The role also touches the policy system around the Series. Under RFC 9920, the Independent Stream’s voting representative on the RFC Series Approval Board is the ISE or someone the ISE appoints. A selection criterion can therefore affect both editorial judgment over particular documents and how the stream participates in series-wide policy approval.

This does not turn an ISE appointment into control of IETF standards. It makes the opposite boundary important. The person should understand how to preserve an independent channel without lending it borrowed consensus, and how to participate in common RFC policy without allowing that policy to erase the stream’s distinct purpose.

The IAB appointments page now lists Eliot Lear for 2022–2028 and says each ISE term is two years. The survey expressly disclaims any evaluation of the current or former officeholders. Nothing in the public notice identifies a candidate, announces a replacement timetable or reports a performance problem. This is criteria work for a future selection, and it should be judged on that narrower record.

Publish an interpretation rule, not anonymous answers

A credible interpretation rule can be short. It should begin by restating the purpose, dates and authority boundary. It should list the disclosed invitation routes, direct-invite classes, forwarding permission and the possibility of duplicate invitations. Those facts describe reach; they do not produce a unique invitation denominator.

Next, the IAB should state how it reads the material. Are free-text answers coded into themes? Are repeated observations counted, weighted or simply used to expose a concern? How are conflicting views retained? Will a small number of technically specific responses outweigh a common but vague preference? The method need not resemble an academic survey protocol, but the audience should know whether a chart represents frequency, salience, risk discovery or institutional judgment.

Then comes the baseline matrix. Put the six RFC 8730 qualification areas and the role’s responsibilities in one column. Put the resulting future criteria in another. Mark each item retained, clarified, added or retired. Give a brief reason and identify whether the support came from the survey, operating experience, another RFC-model change or the IAB’s own assessment. Freeze a dated version before candidate evaluation begins.

Finally, preserve uncertainty. If the survey cannot answer how much time the role needs, which review expertise will be scarce or how the next RFC-model change will alter the office, say so. A criterion can be provisional. An unresolved question is more useful than a percentage given authority it did not earn.

This proposal does not require publishing the survey form’s raw answers. Combinations of role, experience and narrative detail can identify a person even when names and IP addresses are absent. Nor does accountability require candidate scoring sheets, private references or confidential conflict material. The public object is the transformation rule and the final criteria version, not the personnel file.

Advice and appointment should meet at a visible seam

The Policy Mirror asks which artifact actually governs. Here, the survey does not govern the appointment. The operative artifacts will be the criteria used for a future search and the IAB decision applying them. If the survey is displayed prominently while the criteria transformation stays implicit, a consultative surface can be mistaken for the decision rule.

The minimum public specification is therefore modest: what was asked for, who could encounter the invitation, how the answers were interpreted, what changed from RFC 8730, what remained unresolved, which criteria version was frozen and who retained the decision. It leaves the IAB room to exercise judgment while making the sources of that judgment inspectable.

It also protects minority evidence. A rare response might identify an unfamiliar conflict, an underserved author community or a skill needed only during a crisis. Treating the survey as a poll would discount that signal. Treating it as structured advice lets the IAB explain why a low-frequency observation changed a criterion—or why a popular preference did not.

The survey can then do what its announcement promises. It can inform thinking without impersonating consent. The IAB can remain accountable for the choice rather than borrowing authority from an anonymous count.

What the sources can and cannot prove

The public materials establish the survey’s date, stated purpose, closing date, outreach channels, anonymous mode and non-vote boundary. They establish the RFC-defined qualifications and responsibilities, the IAB’s appointment authority, the present appointment listing and the Independent Stream’s place in the RFC Series.

They do not disclose the complete questionnaire in a static public record, the response set, analysis plan, safeguards beyond the statements above, revised criteria, candidate pool or next appointment timetable. This article does not infer any of them. It does not allege that the IAB plans to misuse counts, that anyone will respond twice or that current criteria are defective.

The minimum-initial-specification principle is useful precisely because the future is open. A small interpretation rule can be published before every later detail is known. Reality, not advocacy, then requires the eventual report to distinguish observed themes from inferred representation and IAB judgment from community mandate.

Sources

  1. Heng Lu — The Policy Mirror
  2. Heng Lu — Minimum Initial Specification, Localized Future Decision, Voluntary Adoption
  3. Heng Lu — Why BTW Media Exists and Why Reality, Not Advocacy, Is the Product
  4. IETF — Survey to gather input on ISE selection criteria
  5. IETF announcement archive — IAB Survey on Future ISE Selection Criteria
  6. ISE Selection Criteria Survey
  7. RFC 8730 — Independent Submission Editor Model
  8. RFC 4846 — Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor
  9. IAB — Appointments & Confirmations
  10. RFC Editor — Independent Submissions
  11. RFC 9920 — RFC Editor Model (Version 3)