[tz] Some thoughts about the way forward

[Mark Davis ☕️]

> If you want to maximize data stability under the constraint of being fair,

You are causing potentially a lot of compatibility issues for people around
the globe — in a tremendous (and inexplicable) rush — because of your
notion of 'fair'. That notion seems to be shared by few if any other
people. Could you explain *exactly* how people in Africa (for example) are
disadvantaged by having pre-1970 data for Oslo and Berlin?

How exactly are their lives made worse?

Mark


On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:58 PM Paul Eggert via tz <tz at iana.org> wrote:

> On 9/23/21 14:39, Tom Lane via tz wrote:
> >   There would be a loss
> > of data stability for users in the zones that were moved to backzone
> > previously.  I'm not terribly thrilled about that, but it seems like
> > the least amount of damage to the least amount of people
>
> No, quite the reverse is true. More timezones (and more people) would be
> affected by adopting backzone, than by what's in the development version
> now. For example, the population of Chongqing is about double that of
> Norway and Sweden combined.  And backzone's Asia/Chongqing stands for a
> lot more than just the municipality of Chongqing.
>
> If you want to maximize data stability under the constraint of being
> fair, then the current development repository beats all other proposals
> I've seen so far.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20210923/19542553/attachment.html>