[tz] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-06.txt

[Robert Elz]

    Date:        Thu, 09 Mar 2023 18:28:27 +0100
    From:        Steffen Nurpmeso via tz <tz at iana.org>
    Message-ID:  <20230309172827.kzxkJ%steffen at sdaoden.eu>

  | I _think_ this is objected by kre and fine-tuning is on the way?

I believe Brian's comment was purely related to the use of the
phrase "Daylight Savings Time", suggesting the (current, and
unlikely to alter) POSIX phrase "alternative timezone" as a replacement.

Nothing I am sending POSIX bug reports about is related to this.

Though perhaps I should - as "alternative" suggests just one other
possibility, standard time, and the other time, and that's not really
sufficient (it is OK with a POSIX defined TZ string, as those can
only handle two offsets - the standard one, and an alternative).

In reality, all local time is "standard time" - the offset of that from
UTC varies during the year in many jurisdictions, but be it summer or
winter, it is still the standard time.   The idea that one is right,
and the other is different, is nonsense.   If we went back to pure solar
time, (it is 12:00 noon, when the sun is at the highest point for the
day, all other times are relative to that) then we could perhaps call that
the "real" time, and any variations as just that.   But that's not going
to happen - needing to adjust your watch (a tiny bit) if you move from the
east side of a room to the west side is unimplementable.   But without a
rule like that, all time is simply whatever we decide it should be, nothing
is more right, or more wrong, than anything else (though of course there
are lots of people who believe what they were taught as a child is infallible,
and any variation on that is heresy).

Whatever correctly adjusted local clocks show is the local standard time.
That's what being "standard" means.

How to describe all of this in the various places it should be described
I don't know - but I certainly agree that imagining that there is "standard"
and "daylight saving" time and using those as if they name different kinds
of local time is not a good idea.

I do however understand the need, by those who support it, to sell the
ideas to the mostly ignorant general public, who actually believe there
is one true correct proper time (which is in accordance with what they
grew up with believing was that one true time) rather than the offset
being simply a matter of convenience which can be changed (at some cost)
whenever the benefits are believed to outweigh those costs, and none of
this will cause the world to fall in.   Telling the masses that there is
going to be a brief period of alteration, with a special name, from their
one true known correct time allows people to accept it, where if told
the one true time was going to be altered, you'd have a revolt - even though
what happens is 100% identical in the two cases, but with different rhetoric.

Apologies for the rant...   Lots of the way this is all approached bugs me,
as it makes no logical sense at all.

kre