[tz] draft of change summary for next tz release

[Tim Parenti]

On 19 September 2013 13:21, Andy Heninger <aheninger at google.com> wrote:

> While noisy, I think the very public development process is a good thing,
> and that we will end up with better data overall as a result. I don't see
> this as being at all incompatible with having quick, small updates for late
> breaking rule changes.


I, too, fail to see any incompatibility.  While I am now mildly receptive
to Paul's assertions that some of the changes are not major issues
(although I still don't agree with all of them, for reasons others have
mentioned), there is a clear separation in my mind: The Fiji change needs
to happen.  A vast majority of the others simply don't.  Yes, these other
changes may (or may not) improve upon some aspect of tz's broader goals,
but regardless they are of a completely different level of importance.

If we are to turn away from the more ardent "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" mentality of the past (and I maintain that that is an okay thing to
do), and thus start making changes to the scope and/or spirit of this
project, it would indeed be wise to separate that long-term incremental
work in the project's evolution from the short-term necessities of
publishing correct data for timestamps in the immediate vicinity of now.

I don't see such an approach requiring more than three Git branches: one
for official releases, one for timely data changes mostly ready for
release, and one for longer-term development of the database and code
itself.

On 19 September 2013 15:06, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:

> I humbly suggest that its not the more open process that caused recent
> long threads, but the nature of the changes proposed. One email
> described it as "revolution not evolution" IIRC. Had you used the same
> open process, but not made any of the controversial changes I simply
> do not think that there would have been the same level of debate. ie.
> not all of us see the last two months as being "roughly the same as
> before".
>

Not just the nature of the changes proposed, but also how those proposals
were presented to the list.  Nearly all of the feedback came after proposed
patches were pushed, as it seems little feedback was sought in advance of
those patches being created.  I respect the challenges of Paul's
maintenance role, and do not fault him for trying to make things easier on
himself; however, his personal wishlist for the future of tz is not
congruent to the users' collective wishlist.  The more public development
process under Paul's leadership is indeed a good thing, but I think it
requires a bit more proactive consensus on the direction we should be
moving with things.

On 19 September 2013 15:06, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:

> The real question at this point is not what has happened, but what
>
will happen. Do you believe you have effective consensus to release as
> is? Or do you believe you will gain greater harmony by selecting an
> uncontroversial subset to release now?
>

I'm interested in the response to this.

--
Tim Parenti
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20130920/b8525c2f/attachment.html>