[tz] Proposed reversions, for moving forward

[John Alvord]

For those interested enough,  there should be a variorium database for a
permanent record of all the data and arguments.

John Alvord
On Aug 9, 2014 1:28 AM, "Tim Parenti" <tim at timtimeonline.com> wrote:

>
> On 8 August 2014 19:51, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> Timekeeping simply wasn't that accurate back then.  The changes in
>> question alter timestamps by a few minutes in areas where timekeeping was
>> so sloppy that people at the time wouldn't have noticed or cared about the
>> change.
>
>
> These comments, along with the rest of your message, help greatly in my
> personal understanding.  I can't speak for the others, but I think that
> this articulates much of what I have been missing.
>
> On 8 August 2014 19:51, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> there is no such thing as "removing" data from an end user's perspective
>>>
>>
>> This objection would have merit if end users cared about this data to
>> 1-second precision.  But they don't.  And they're right to not care.
>
>
> Really, the only "losses" I can think of would be to those who converted
> ancient timestamps to UNIX time and simply stored them away in a dusty
> database without a second thought.  The losses they incur with these
> changes may well be their own fault for not adhering to best practices
> (which we should also try to encourage), but we should at least weigh the
> effects on even shoddy implementations.  Perhaps this was indeed
> considered, but this wasn't clear.  I still think being more proactive in
> discussing the content of proposed changes before committing them would
> help, but moving forward with a secondary area for suspect data sidesteps
> that issue somewhat.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that, for the vast majority of applications,
> cultures, and traditions, people would be right not to care about this.
> But I will simply restate for the record that I find any arguments that
> they do or don't to be pretty weak.  Fortunately, from the rest of your
> response, I am (mostly) satisfied, provided we do indeed aim to move
> forward with a secondary area for data of dubious provenance.
>
> --
> Tim Parenti
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20140809/f03df7e0/attachment-0001.html>