On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Wallace, Malcolm <Malcolm.Wallace@sc.com> wrote:
Who is we?
This does not apply to what the IANA hosted tzdb project does. Do you have a mailing list for your tzdb project?
Also it seems the Elz tzdb is much less known than the IANA / Olson tzdb.
I believe, when Robert says "we",
Believe doesn't help.
he probably means himself, Arthur Olson, and Paul Eggert, who together have recently been the official maintainers of the IANA/Olson tzdb. I see no indication on the mailing list that Robert Elz is the spokesperson for Arthur David Olson.
His "we" may even include some other people on this mailing list, who also understand the tzdb project well. Or not. It may also include people that don't understand it.
It is clear that you do not understand this project as well as they do Can you bring evidence for this?
- otherwise you would not constantly be questioning their judgement, That is a false claim by you. Questioning the judgement of any group of people doesn't mean the one who is questioning doesn't understand the topic.
in a manner that often comes across as rude and offensive. That is your interpretation.
Whilst you seem to think that the "Theory" file is the ultimate arbiter of the scope of the project, you are wrong. If I seem to do something then I am wrong? Wouldn't it be that I /seem/ to be wrong?
It is the human beings named as maintainers who take the ultimate decisions on whether any particular proposed change is in or out of scope for the tzdb project. And in /taking/ decisions they can introduce bugs. Or staying away from fixing as in
a) Paul Eggert http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008776.html ::Hong Kong ... is a country b) Theory file: ::when countries change their name ... ::Hong Kong from UK colony to China -> The country Hong Kong changed its name from "UK colony" to "China"? This is not supported by c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#HK ::HK Hong Kong 1974 This issue had been reported at 2011-09-12 by Tobias Conradi http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2011-September/008783.html
These human beings, through their long association with the tzdb project, are able to understand and interpret nuances, Nuances of what or where?
and also to make corrections to the text of the Theory file (where the Theory file turns out to fail to express the intent of the maintainers adequately). Corrections can also be made with and without long association. What is needed is understanding the text. But I agree that with certain people it may be difficult to find an agreement on the correct answer for
-> The country Hong Kong changed its name from "UK colony" to "China"?
If you can manage both to be more polite whilst asking questions, Be polite whilst asking a question? You mean I should smile in front of my computer screen?
and clearer about the changes you propose, I think I was clear enough, and people can ask for clarification.
you will probably find you will achieve a more rapid and willing response. I am very content with the rapidness of the responses to the zones I proposed to be created. If you and Robert Elz didn't respond this doesn't matter. First of all I care about the tzdb. And if you and Robert Elz don't understand something, you are free to ask for clarification. But I have not seen any such request between September 2011 and March 2012.
But if you persist with your current abrasive approach, What do you think is my "current abrasive approach"? Can you show to the list members some examples?
I think the maintainers may eventually get tired of your style and cease to respond at all. I care about correctness in the tzdb. I hope maintainers are happy to receive bug reports as they help to improve the tzdb.
Maybe this time you look into the Theory file and read what the scope of the tzdb is.
"The time zone rule file naming conventions attempt to strike a balance among the following goals:
* Uniquely identify every national region where clocks have all agreed since 1970. [...] * Indicate to humans as to where that region is. * [...] "
I presume you mean to invoke the second bullet point here. A presumption about a thing is not the thing itself.
-- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/