Re: QT4CG meeting 136 draft agenda, 30 September 2025

Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com> writes:
> Before making decision to close "The Generator record" issue, please, be informed that several people have expressed strong support for the idea to make the Generator record a standard/pre-defined record in XPath. These include Adam Retter, Liam Quinn and Sasha Firsov. Liam Quinn and Sasha Firsov even agreed to be considered co-authors for a future Pull Request.

I appreciate your perspective. A few points:

- Closing the issue doesn’t preclude someone from writing a PR to address it.
- The issue has been open for four months and no PR has been forthcoming. Do you have any reason to believe that a PR is currently being drafted and will be proposed soon?
- Standards groups have a life cycle. At some point in that cycle, the group begins to try to draw a circle around the remaining items that it intends to complete for the next version.

When a group begins to look from “what could we possibly do that would be valuable/interesting/useful?” to “what must we do in order to declare victory on V.next and ship something?” it becomes valuable for for the group to start making clear statements about what items are, and are not, likely to be included.

That’s not a judgement on the value, interest, or utility of the individual items. It’s a statement about what the group believes it has energy, will, and participation to finish.

If the group decides to close the issue (it’s merely a proposal on the agenda at this time) and the outcome of that decision is that a group of authors who disagree with that decision get together and submit a PR that addresses the item in a complete, comprehensive, and coherent way, I think that would be an undisputable win for everyone.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2025 12:53:10 UTC