Alan Barrett said:
> As a general rule, I think that existing information should never
> be replaced by other information with the same or worse quality,
> but should only be replaced by information of greater quality.
> In other words, rules should be changed only when the new rules
> are clearly superior to the old rules.  Even if the old rules are
> known to be inaccurate, they should be retained for the sake of
> stability until such time as more accurate information is known.

I don't agree. If we know or have good reason to believe that the data is
completely bogus, then there's no point in retaining it. And having
different data for two zones produces a subconcious belief that both are
higher quality than if we just have the same. So where the data is
completely wrong, I vote for these merges.

> I also prefer retaining at least one first class zone for each
> ISO3166 country, for ease of menu or map based selection, and to
> allow users to see that the selected zone name contains the name
> of a familiar city in their country.  I think that some users will
> be upset to see a time zone name that contains the name of a city
> in another country, especially if the two countries have a history
> of conflict.

I completely agree with this part.

--
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive@davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646