<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 April 2015 at 02:19, Paul Eggert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eggert@cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=eggert@cs.ucla.edu&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">eggert@cs.ucla.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">From 2011 to 2014 a time zone separated EET (UTC+2) from MSK (then UTC+4), and I invented the abbreviation "FET" for this UTC+3 zone. But it's better if the tz database reflects existing practice rather than inventing it, and since we no longer have a strong need for an invented abbreviation I'd rather stop using it.</blockquote></div><br>I agree that discontinuing use of FET is the correct approach here.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 April 2015 at 14:28, Paul Eggert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eggert@cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=eggert@cs.ucla.edu&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">eggert@cs.ucla.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Regardless of the original etymology, in English "MSK" is a more-natural acronym for Minsk than it is for Moscow</blockquote><div><br>Perhaps, but much as we try to say that tz abbreviations are inherently ambiguous, MSK does have a well-established and far-reaching meaning outside the context of our project. Moreover, our own guiding principles would suggest use of BYT (for "Belarus Time") or MINT (for "Minsk Time") before considering anything else.</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, this is what was first proposed when Belarus switched to year-round UTC+3 in September 2011:</div><div><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008813.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008813.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Only when Ukraine announced intent to join Belarus on year-round UTC+3 a few days later did we decide to use FET as a convenient method of grouping:</div><div><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008833.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008833.html</a><br></div><div><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008837.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008837.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>(Admittedly, we created FET because we thought at the time that it might become more common and needed a distinct name. In the end, we only grouped Belarus and Kaliningrad, as Ukraine did not follow through with that plan.)</div><div><br></div><div>Now that Kaliningrad is on year-round UTC+2 (EET), this leaves only Belarus. It does not make sense to keep an invented grouping around to group one thing, so FET should go, and it has. But it equally doesn't make sense to group Belarus with Moscow just because Moscow changed its clocks. I may be wrong, I cannot think of another case where we have applied the designation of a neighboring country to a region that has not itself changed its timekeeping rules. In any case, it hardly seems appropriate here.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">[MSK] has the advantage of being recognized as an alias for UTC+3 by a reasonably large set of software already (which is unwise, but there it is).</blockquote></div><br>I strongly believe that this is not enough reason to outweigh consideration of BYT and MINT.<br></div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">--<br>Tim Parenti<br></div></div>
</div></div>