On 24.09.21 11:15, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 09:58, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
It's clearly not equitable. We should not make special exceptions for Norway and Sweden while having China, southeast Asia, Africa, etc. follow the same rules as everyone else. There is no timekeeping justification for this; it's purely a political decision and it's a terrible look for us. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Norway and Sweden should follow the same rules as everyone else. I am saying that current rules result in what I consider to be an inequitable outcome where Berlin is favoured over Oslo. I understand that you don't see that as inequitable, but please try to understand that I do.
(The are also separate, but important downstream issues of stability and breakages that need handling in a more considered manner)
I've just sent a suggestion that would back off many of the changes you're objecting to. I view this as being a big concession on my part, because I'll now have to defend making a gradual fix to the equity problem. Would that suggestion be acceptable to you? Here it is again, if you haven't seen it in the recent blizzard of emails:
OK, how about if I scale back the current round of link-merging, so that it's on the scale of what we've done in previous releases? I would not at all be happy with such an approach since it would delay the release of an equitable solution, but if this approach will help reach consensus I can prepare a patch along those lines. The idea would be to finish the job in the next few releases. I really am trying to find a compromise here (even if it's a compromise that nobody likes :-). However, a compromise works only if the other side accepts it. I have a good final position state for tzdb in my head, but I don't want to write it to the list until everything is calmer. (My proposal meets both your and my equity viewpoints).
Before you put out a "good final position", could you please respond to Paul on his compromise proposal. Eliot