-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just for my own edification, it seems to me that there are some simple rules to follow. Let me know if I'm even close: 1. If the data is correct, there is no issue. 2. If the data is known to be false, it should come out. 3. If the data has no basis in fact (e.g., not known to be false but also no basis to believe it is true), it should come out. 4. If the data has conflicting historical viewpoints, it is a judgment call based on the quality of the reports. Does that seem about right or did I get something wrong or miss something? To me, stability of false or seemingly fabricated information (2 & 3) is actually a bad thing because people cite the database in their works and we don't want to perpetuate that. Eliot On 8/8/14, 8:25 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Paul Eggert wrote:
Although we didn't make the changes lightly, we valued correctness over stability even when we knew we didn't achieve 100% correctness. This has long been common practice in tz maintenance.
Yes, valuing correctness over stability is good, even when the new data is not 100% correct, provided it is more correct than the old data.
The stability-related complaints have been about cases where the "more correct than the old data" condition was not perceived to be satisfied.
I am gradually coming round to the opinion that the new data is probably more correct than the old data, but that is not clear to all observers.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT5JnOAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozTTEH/3/q+VIavDUcqzpzGGs90LIR /Ke4Ah3FhaEKXLtq2p5vUXpZUQMyfQ83mJD39HPbCLDPq5taBPsTRAjxQdMQh3ju kUH7Y1jIYsC0rYhz3CbksF1goycSOvIOXMddbxzmlNM3NYK+qwBMgvZjO8Bw6GMO FTCQWRzLhbFsUjtuG4BPJV7uXAjr9Kk1XmCt8lcC3QYhjihJUUgZE9p31YkfPN7r 2CvsqyjoCgpxEDVxZ4o5bVRyabe995XwhSZmKlNY6ickml6UgRtQ9ewbigRCDF2Y rgP8foEHR5cn0XzLutRk+Vn4L1TxH2eD0Ypt4lBHhP86+mmDSur8cJmvpxFcNU0= =qSnZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----