On Mar 17, 2022, at 17:31, Chris Walton via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:

I believe that the US government did the correct thing by advertising this change as permanent Daylight Saving Time, and then attempting to redefine Standard Time.
If you want the public to understand the intent of this change, you cannot use the term "Standard Time" without confusing 90% of the population.
If you simply tell the public that Daylight Saving will be permanent, there is absolutely no ambiguity about what you are trying to accomplish.
FYI. Yukon recently did the same thing.  The Yukon government asked the public if they wanted "year-round Daylight Saving Time (UTC-7)" or "year-round Standard Time (UTC-8)".  The public chose the first option, but when the legislation was drawn up, all references to the term "Daylight Saving" were removed.  

All good points!

Is there an emerging consensus here yet about which way we want to try to steer this? (I’m thinking something along the lines of “model language” for an amendment that we could take to our respective Congress-critters).

(1) Just call the new normal ‘Daylight Saving Time’ and then stick a fork in it

(2) Redefine ’Standard Time’ zones with new offsets

(3) Something else?

Cheers!


|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |             Chief Developer             |
|                           |             Paravel Systems             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A room without books is like a body without a soul.         |
|                                                                     |
|                                                         -- Cicero   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|