<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Agreed.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div id="composer_signature" dir="auto"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my Galaxy</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div align="left" dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Stephen Colebourne via tz <tz@iana.org> </div><div>Date: 2021-09-25 12:40 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Time zone mailing list <tz@iana.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [tz] Why 2021b needed to be issued </div><div><br></div></div>"On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 06:23, Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:<br>> The main difference in this round of patches, is that I had aimed to<br>> complete the job, in response to a user query raising equity concerns in<br>> 2021a. It is clear that the 2021a setup was not sustainable in the long<br>> term, if equity is a goal.<br><br>Equity is not a formal goal of the project. It is not documented or<br>agreed in the RFC nor in the theory file. Your opinion of what is<br>equitable does not align with mine.<br><br><br>> Completing the job generated larger patches than usual, and the patches'<br>> size triggered concern that they held too many changes all at once.<br><br>Having read hundreds of emails over the past few months, I don't think<br>*anyone* expressed the concern of patch size or too many changes.<br><br><br>> Also, the patches' effects on pre-1970 timestamps in (for example)<br>> Norway and Sweden have triggered concerns, much more so than similar<br>> changes made (for example) to Angola and Congo in tzdb 2014g.<br><br>It may not be pleasant to accept, but I would strongly argue that<br>places like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are much more<br>significant to the world economy than Angola and Congo. You simply<br>cannot judge the impact based on what has happened before. In<br>addition, the pre-1970 data being removed now is much better<br>researched than much of what has previously been removed.<br><br><br>> I also recognize that there are other forms of equity and fairness that<br>> should be considered, perhaps along with alternative technical solutions<br>> to the problems these patches address.<br><br>Thank you for the acknowledgement.<br><br><br>In summary, I am livid with the high-handed approach you have taken<br>wrt the release of 2021b. Despite near unanimity of the mailing list<br>requesting you to release 2021a+MinimalChanges, you progressed 9 out<br>of the 30 link merges based on a rationale that you acknowledge is not<br>universally accepted.<br><br>I believe your actions are against the spirit of the RFC, if not the<br>letter (as decided by the IESG), as you "SHOULD take into account<br>views expressed on the mailing list".<br><br><br>I will now take a break from this matter for a long weekend, as the<br>list has requested. Later next week I will try to start a positive<br>discussion as to what the next steps can be.<br><br>Stephen<br></body></html>