[tz] Some thoughts about the way forward

[Stephen Colebourne]

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 08:09, Paul Eggert via tz <tz at iana.org> wrote:
> 2021a1 will give you maximum stability and compatibility with 2021a, so
> you can use that if equity is not as much of a concern for you.

No we can't. Any downstream project based off the GitHub source repo
will only see the tag on the main branch (2021b) and not get the
stability. Any project with fixed version naming conventions (eg.
Android) will not be able to adopt 2021a1. By making the choice you
have, every downstream project that wants stability is forced to make
some kind of change in the next 24 hours.


> The equity issue was raised early this year, and we've delayed dealing
> with it for far too long already. Equity is a real issue of concern, and
> it's a bad look for us if we continue with a clearly-inequitable primary
> distribution when a fairer approach has long been implemented and
> available and nothing else is available.

Paul, please consider that I and others consider the tip of main
branch to be considerably *less* equitable than 2021a. Until you can
accept that your definition of equity is not the only one on this list
we won't move forward.


> This is mostly a disagreement about maintenance philosophy not end-user
> functionality, as the pre-1970 differences between 2021a1 and 2021b will
> be minor when considered from end users' point of view. We know this
> because we've made similar changes many times in previous releases.

I've already made clear that the tip of main would be utterly
disastrous for Joda-Time users. Yesterday I was forced to make a
release that tries to block adoption of your proposed 2021b, but
unfortunately the new release won't be picked up by the very
application teams that will be most affected.

There is a big difference between merging the time zones of two
African or Caribbean countries and merging the time zones of two
European countries. Whether equitable or not, the reality is a lot
more of the world's economy will be affected this time.

> I'll be happy to collaborate on building something that will accommodate
> our philosophical differences in later releases

I am also happy to collaborate on a solution. But I sense absolutely
no willingness on your part to provide the time and space to make that
happen.

Apart from Tim Parenti, I don't think any list member wants you to
release 2021a1/2021b in the manner you proposed. Especially when there
is a low risk alternative that allows us to progress matters more
sensibly. Does that opposition really not matter at all?

I believe the mailing list has spoken very clearly - move the current
main to be a branch, reset main to 2021 and release 2021a with minimal
Samoa changes (as 2021b). Then take a long weekend and then put
forward proposed solutions.

(I have two or three proposed solutions ready and waiting, but I don't
want to publish until we are past the Samoa release).

Stephen