<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="auto">I strongly agree with Stephen here. Every iso country needs at least one slot in the db for their own history back to lmt. Applications have a need for this type of historical data. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Should this data be captured in tz, or a fork?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></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: 2021-09-21 15:34 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Time zone mailing list <tz@iana.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [tz] Preparing to fork tzdb </div><div><br></div></div>On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 17:48, Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:<br>> This disagreement is not about whether the data in question are<br>> available; it's only about which file they're in. Nothing is being<br>> "wiped out" or refused.<br><br>It is about more than that. The current unreleased state of tzdb is<br>that it favours some countries over others, such as Germany over<br>Sweden/Norway. It does this to a much greater extent than before. From<br>my perspective, that is the root of the problem here.<br><br>> I think this greatly underestimate the effort to do a complete job. We'd<br>> eventually need thousands of Zones.<br><br>I would imagine that most readers of this list would not want<br>thousands of zones. The goal of including every time-zone that has<br>ever been is a straw man.<br><br>I'm perfectly happy with the post-1970 rule for determining what IDs<br>we have so long as it results in one ID per ISO country. In addition,<br>at least one ID per ISO country is entitled to have full history back<br>to LMT, **even if it is innaccurate**.<br><br><br>> [I] am UCLA teaching<br>professor who has institutional obligations in the areas of equity,<br>diversity and inclusion<br>...<br>> merely going back to<br>2021a's setup is not something we can or should do, on equity grounds.<br><br>The patch makes the equity/diversity/inclusion position of tzdb far,<br>far worse. Appreciating this is the first step necessary to resolving<br>this.<br><br>Stephen<br></body></html>