For those interested enough, there should be a variorium database for a permanent record of all the data and arguments. John Alvord On Aug 9, 2014 1:28 AM, "Tim Parenti" <tim@timtimeonline.com> wrote:
On 8 August 2014 19:51, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
Timekeeping simply wasn't that accurate back then. The changes in question alter timestamps by a few minutes in areas where timekeeping was so sloppy that people at the time wouldn't have noticed or cared about the change.
These comments, along with the rest of your message, help greatly in my personal understanding. I can't speak for the others, but I think that this articulates much of what I have been missing.
On 8 August 2014 19:51, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
there is no such thing as "removing" data from an end user's perspective
This objection would have merit if end users cared about this data to 1-second precision. But they don't. And they're right to not care.
Really, the only "losses" I can think of would be to those who converted ancient timestamps to UNIX time and simply stored them away in a dusty database without a second thought. The losses they incur with these changes may well be their own fault for not adhering to best practices (which we should also try to encourage), but we should at least weigh the effects on even shoddy implementations. Perhaps this was indeed considered, but this wasn't clear. I still think being more proactive in discussing the content of proposed changes before committing them would help, but moving forward with a secondary area for suspect data sidesteps that issue somewhat.
I wholeheartedly agree that, for the vast majority of applications, cultures, and traditions, people would be right not to care about this. But I will simply restate for the record that I find any arguments that they do or don't to be pretty weak. Fortunately, from the rest of your response, I am (mostly) satisfied, provided we do indeed aim to move forward with a secondary area for data of dubious provenance.
-- Tim Parenti