Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
On 9/24/21 1:28 PM, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
The stuff in 'backzone' is lower quality, and adding lower-quality data is not strictly an improvement.
Not true: Europe/Belfast, Europe/Guernsey, Europe/Jersey, Europe/Isle_of_Man are not of "lower quality",
You're correct, I should have written "is often of lower quality".
I think the current hoo-hah has been brought on precisely by shoving stuff into backzone despite there *not* being an argument that it's of poor quality. I still think there's room to resolve the unhappiness by adopting a three-way classification such as I suggested upthread. There's surely room to negotiate where the boundary between the "in by default" and "out by default" groups falls. It seems you'd prefer a strict standard, akin to "in only if it's documented to a level similar to the in-scope zones". Unfortunately, that seems like a pretty squishy standard, since there are in-scope zones with only the scantiest of documentation (South Georgia and Suriname being the first couple of examples I came across). I think the rule I suggested, "in unless there are documented concerns about correctness", would be a lot simpler to apply and easier to defend. regards, tom lane