Wouldn't we normally _not_ create a new zone until it diverges from its current zone? Which makes the historical "has it always been GMT-5" important. If that answer is yes, then there's no need (yet) for a new zone, but if there is an historical divergence then a new zone is warranted. From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ? Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:54 PM To: David Patte Cc: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Missing entry for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands I also agree. ________________________________ Mark<https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene — On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Patte <dpatte@relativedata.com<mailto:dpatte@relativedata.com>> wrote: I also agree On 2012-05-11 15:56, Paw Boel Nielsen wrote: I agree with Tobias a new zone for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands would be beneficial. Maybe because Etc/GMT-5 is adequate? Systems that are set to use "Etc/GMT-5" will not observe a change even if HM changes. Paw -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org<mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org> [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org<mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org>] On Behalf Of Tobias Conradi Sent: 11 May 2012 21:44 To: tz@iana.org<mailto:tz@iana.org> Subject: Re: [tz] Missing entry for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Ian Abbott<abbotti@mev.co.uk<mailto:abbotti@mev.co.uk>> wrote: If so, why is HM not covered? Maybe because Etc/GMT-5 is adequate? Systems that are set to use "Etc/GMT-5" will not observe a change even if HM changes. I don't know whether HM observed UTC+5 during all the time since 1970. That is an information the tzdb provides for many other ISO 3166-1 regions, but for HM it fails to do so. -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/ --