Re: QT4CG meeting 136 draft agenda, 30 September 2025

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

> As regards the generator proposal, I think it is quite capable of finding
acceptance within the group
>  if it were presented in the right way. I don't personally find it
compelling enough, relative to other priorities,
> to put my own effort into it, but it's been sitting on the issues list
for two years
> and we either need to see a concrete proposal or we need to get it off
the table.

OK, now that the method-application operator and the definition of what a
method is - has become more stable, I will try to prepare a PR in 2 weeks
or so.

Anyone with specific ideas/requirements - please contact me personally
(offlist) at dnovatchev  @   gmail.com  or via Slack DMs.

What is meant by "if it were presented the right way", Dr. Kay? I know you
are quite busy, but just expanding a little bit on this via email/DM would
be really valuable.

Thanks,
Dimitre.


On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 1:07 PM Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

> > MK’s opinions are no different from anyone else’s in that regard: I
> recorded my own view that his proposal to allow user-defined functions
> without a namespace was a bad idea. I still think it’s a bad idea, but we
> did it anyway because that’s where consensus lay.
>
> I might add that many of the PRs I raise, including the one Norm mentions
> here, are implementing ideas put forward by other members of the group: my
> aim is often to get a decision one way or the other rather than leaving
> things open for ever. My proposals don't always find favour with the group,
> but when they do, it is because I have tried to anticipate how the group
> will respond before I put things forward. On a group like this that you are
> much more likely to be able to steer the group in a particular direction if
> you respect that there are always good arguments both ways and that
> opposing viewpoints always deserve respect. I once worked on a standards
> group chaired by an industrial psychologist who would give you feedback on
> how you had presented ideas: the main thing I learnt was that if you take
> time to understand the objections to a proposal, you are much more likely
> to win over the objectors.
>
> As regards the generator proposal, I think it is quite capable of finding
> acceptance within the group if it were presented in the right way. I don't
> personally find it compelling enough, relative to other priorities, to put
> my own effort into it, but it's been sitting on the issues list for two
> years and we either need to see a concrete proposal or we need to get it
> off the table. At this stage in the game we need to reduce our aspirations
> and ask whether a new feature is something we can live without, and a lot
> of good ideas (including some of mine) are going to fall on stony ground as
> a result.
>
> Michael Kay
>
>
>