On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 19:27, Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
On 9/20/21 11:03 AM, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
I also believe that discriminating against countries like Angola and Niger is unacceptable. But the solution to that is the same as it always has been - to include full data for each ISO country, using best efforts for data that is not certain.
I addressed this issue toward the end of my recent email to Tom Lane <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030422.html>, which I sent about the same time you sent your email.
The argument you make is that fixing tzdb to have better historic data in an equitable way is a big task, which we agree on. But where we disagree is the need to nuke what we have now as a first step. The right approach would be to start from the 2021a data and actively add in the missing pieces to reach the equitable goal. As I've said before, there are only two equitable solutions for the default tzdb files (ie minus backzone). Either they contain full history for every ISO country (even if that history is inaccurate), or they contain no pre-1970 data at all. It is completely inequitable to allow only some locations to have pre-1970 data (and to the average user, the choice *looks* very arbitrary even if it isn't).
The *only* good faith move you can make right now is to revert the patch.
We disagree on this point. This morning I made a different good-faith move, by installing the "Revert May patch to zone.tab" patch into the development database. I suggested another potential good-faith move in that recent email to Tom Lane.
Expecting downstream projects to change their build systems with no notice to solve an artificially created crisis isn't good project management. It isn;t appropriate behaviour for the role of TZ coordinator.
I continue to think that it would be better to work together to find a common solution, than to insist on one unalterable position.
I have absolutely no desire to support a fork. I'm being forced into it by your unwillingness to listen to this group's feedback and perform the reversion. All these additional partial reversions have actually had the effect of making the issue harder to resolve, not easier. I have also laid out a possible future position for tzdb [1]. But to move forward, the data set needs to be reset back to 2021a. The question you as TZ coordinator should consider is which route has the best outcome? - revert now, then discuss and agree a long-term solution that solves the equitability issue - or, do not revert, and trigger a painful fork, with different downstream projects choosing one or the other I have always wanted the first option - forking is not a good outcome. But the choice is yours to make, not mine. Stephen