Introduction and apology for slamming you "with that TZ is a legal thing" commentary out of the blue.
So I need to properly introduce myself to explain why I said what I said on the list. I am a professional timekeeper meaning that I and my team operate clocks which end users rely on. My team runs 10 of the NIST public access timebase systems and is expanding the availability of UTC to include PTP and other evidence-control tools as add-ons for traceable time. That said - the TZ data is used in virtually all commercial and electronic document/instrument processing systems operational today. The problem is that the Time Zone data itself (while created through a standards process) has largely been managed as an ad-hoc offering and this was accepted everywhere because the party and hosting entity for this were the US Government NIH and Dr. Olson. But with the good Dr.s retirement there is a need to formalize this process and expand its controls so that the data remains both properly managed and available to all. So the question is how to do that, and I have pushed back that this effort is much more important and needs to be managed outside an IETF process because of the lack of control the IETF has designed into its framework. This specific project is one which needs a level of oversight that the IETF process doesnt put in place for changes and content updates to the DB. What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base and have that processed in a fixed timeframe outside of any continued IETF review. This is not an excuse to make a new IETF WG to control the world... its about letting the world operate in a manner which doesnt impose the IETF's judgement or political opinions on anyone either. That said my proposal is to morph the current I-D by adding an inline update process to the CONTENT RECORDS of the DB and a NEW RECORD Addition Policy and Practice through IANA and not the IETF. In closing - My apologies for antagonizing anyone, and I would point out that since we do about 300M timesettings per day - all tied to TZ's I would retort I may be one of the only people here who is NOT a troll... Todd -- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 17:41, Todd Glassey <tglassey@certichron.com> wrote:
That said - the TZ data is used in virtually all commercial and electronic document/instrument processing systems operational today. The problem is that the Time Zone data itself (while created through a standards process) has largely been managed as an ad-hoc offering and this was accepted everywhere because the party and hosting entity for this were the US Government NIH and Dr. Olson.
If I might humbly respond. As someone who has recently read through a lot of the list, I think you are not fully informed about the project. First, changes to timezones are done in an ad-hoc manner throughout the world. Even just looking at recent changes demonstrates that updates can occur with little warning. Second, it has been my experience in my working life that "formal process" is quite frequently at odds with "rapid change." The first does not ban the second, but it's a frequent outcome. It seems to me that Robert Elz will best know how to organise this project into the future. He has been a longtime contributor - since near the beginning if not the beginning - and has had a good deal of influence over how it has been organised. While I have had limited experience with the tzinfo project, I do have a good deal of experience on usenet and mailing lists. Showing up on a list and discussing legal issues and stating how a project should be organised as an introduction is, shall we say, suboptimal to achieving the goals you may desire. And I think if you look over the history of this project you'll understand why your suggestions might not lead to the best outcome. The best source of that is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/ Kevin -- Kevin Lyda Dublin, Ireland US Citizen overseas? We can vote. Register now: http://www.votefromabroad.org/
On 20 Oct 2011, at 17:41, Todd Glassey wrote:
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base and have that processed in a fixed timeframe outside of any continued IETF review. This is not an excuse to make a new IETF WG to control the world... its about letting the world operate in a manner which doesnt impose the IETF's judgement or political opinions on anyone either.
Matybe you should rope in the United Nations as well. :-) Assuming you managed to set up this mechanism where a legal authority can make requests, how many requests do you think would get made? My guess would be hardly any, maybe even zero. Based on my reading of this list over many years, lots of governments can barely be trusted to tell their own citizens what will happen to the clocks. They probably won't be interested in contacting a bunch of geeks like us, even if they knew we existed. That's not a dig at "less developed" governments. I provided some of the data for the UK over the years. When I was speaking to the civil servants in the relevant government department I would tell them why I was asking about this stuff. They were uninterested. I think they just considered me a minor nuisance. Then, as Clive Feather pointed out, the database attempts to capture what people actually do, rather than what their government tells them to do. In my opinion the informal nature of the tz database is a strength, not a weakness. -- Peter Ilieve peter@aldie.co.uk
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base
By "legal authority" do you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", or some other form of legal authority? If you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", would it remain possible for the database to be updated even if the authority makes no such request and somebody happens to discover that country X has decided to change the time zone rules? If not, then, unless you can get all such legal authorities to make those request, requiring such a request would not constitute an improvement to the process; the resulting process would be worse, as some updates required by time zone changes wouldn't happen.
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:45:59 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base
By "legal authority" do you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", or some other form of legal authority?
I mean specifically the people responsible for setting and disseminating notice of the setting of TZ data values. These are actually very accessible people.
If you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", would it remain possible for the database to be updated even if the authority makes no such request and somebody happens to discover that country X has decided to change the time zone rules?
That also has to be decided. As I said - this is actually 'statements of commercial interoperability' in commerce processes. Legal-organizations (States, Counties, Countries what-ever) publish this information as a basis of their internal e-Operations and calibration so that their people and the rest of the world can all interact. That's a given but we often forget that the time service is used for a number of functions from synchronization to attestation and that the same time source needs to be available for each so that the evidence models are flattenable where needed. So the issue is how to provide a process for legitimate holder of the legal authority to make public statements about their time zones. What this actually is - is a massive opportunity for the IETF to prove its strengthens and to provide the technology to manage this as a design and then a service.
If not, then, unless you can get all such legal authorities to make those request, requiring such a request would not constitute an improvement to the process; the resulting process would be worse, as some updates required by time zone changes wouldn't happen.
I agree totally - unless you have someone who is assigned like Dr. Olson was doing to formally collect that information. I am betting that the NIH.GOV email address didn't hurt the process either. As I said - this is an opportunity to implement what he was doing manually in an automated process and that is the real win here. No matter who actually winds up setting and managing the content IMHO. Todd
-- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947.
Todd, To be clear, my goals for the work of the IETF and IANA have been simply to support the good works of this community as time invariably marches on. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anything that would disturb this community would not be an acceptable change, in my view. However, as I believe you know, at this point in time, the draft is approved by the IESG and only small changes will be permitted. Eliot
On 10/20/2011 11:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Todd,
To be clear, my goals for the work of the IETF and IANA have been simply to support the good works of this community as time invariably marches on. Nothing more. Nothing less. Understood. And based on the feedback I think maybe that I will recant my request to alter the existing doc. Let me respond further below. Anything that would disturb this community would not be an acceptable change, in my view.
However, as I believe you know, at this point in time, the draft is approved by the IESG and only small changes will be permitted.
Eliot
Elliot - What I think needs to be done is that we need to publish the draft and expand on it in a Management of the DB Draft which would be published as a second I-D. I also think that IANA is not the best place for this but it will work for now until the lawsuit gets around to naming it and ISOC. I don't think the case is winnable for Astrolabe unless they are talking about additional commentary in the book. The ISO Country and TZ codes are clearly not their property and since they are 'merely reporting on a value set by a legal authority' they also likely have no claim there. Also - what they were not aware of (no doubt their greed blinded them) that the NIH access model protected them from publication errors they may have made as well since as noted that data is property of the parties setting it. So my proposal is now that you continue with the document with the idea it will be updated and that supporting materials will be added. I would suggest a TZ Management Service draft as that umbrella document and underneath it do a User Access doc, a Provider Update doc, and maybe a document on UN interfaces as well. Todd -- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947.
At 11:29 20-10-2011, Todd Glassey wrote:
Elliot - What I think needs to be done is that we need to publish the draft and expand on it in a Management of the DB Draft which would be published as a second I-D.
There is no need for a second I-D. This mailing list is supposed to be "used just as it has been: to learn of, discuss, and confirm TZ definition changes, as well as to serve as an announcement list for new versions of the database". Regards, -sm
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
That said - the TZ data is used in virtually all commercial and electronic document/instrument processing systems operational today.
Including the ones running on operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, that don't use the Olson database?
The problem is that the Time Zone data itself (while created through a standards process)
The daylight savings time rules in various countries are created through various governmental processes in those countries; it might be done by legislative action or executive fiat. I'm not sure I'd call that a "standards process" of any sort. The Olson time zone database is created by a process of "people send e-mails to the tz list about changes by various governments, they get discussed on the list, and changes get made and a new release goes out the door". I'm not sure I'd call that a "standards process" of any sort, either.
has largely been managed as an ad-hoc offering and this was accepted everywhere because the party and hosting entity for this were the US Government NIH and Dr. Olson.
Do you have any evidence to show that the fact that Mr. Olson happens to work at the US National Institute of Health, and that the US National Institute of Health lets (or let) him store it on one of their FTP servers (I don't even know whether anybody in a Significant Position of Authority(TM) at the NIH knew about that) made any difference whatsoever?
But with the good Dr.s retirement there is a need to formalize this process and expand its controls so that the data remains both properly managed and available to all. So the question is how to do that,
I suspect most people here think that "how to do that" is "Keep Calm and Carry On", and are skeptical, based on their experiences with the way the list works and governments work, that any more formal requirements would help, and might even suspect they'd get in the way.
and I have pushed back that this effort is much more important and needs to be managed outside an IETF process because of the lack of control the IETF has designed into its framework.
This specific project is one which needs a level of oversight that the IETF process doesnt put in place for changes and content updates to the DB.
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base and have that processed in a fixed timeframe outside of any continued IETF review.
The way they request an update is "send a mail message to the tz list, just like anybody else".
This is not an excuse to make a new IETF WG to control the world... its about letting the world operate in a manner which doesnt impose the IETF's judgement or political opinions on anyone either.
That said my proposal is to morph the current I-D by adding an inline update process to the CONTENT RECORDS of the DB and a NEW RECORD Addition Policy and Practice through IANA and not the IETF.
Where in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-02.html is significant power over the process assigned to the IETF, to the extent that we need to worry about "IETF review" getting in the way, or "the IETF's judgement or political opinions" becoming significant, short of a couple of mentions of the IESG?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:29, Guy Harris <guy@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
has largely been managed as an ad-hoc offering and this was accepted everywhere because the party and hosting entity for this were the US Government NIH and Dr. Olson.
Do you have any evidence to show that the fact that Mr. Olson happens to work at the US National Institute of Health, and that the US National Institute of Health lets (or let) him store it on one of their FTP servers (I don't even know whether anybody in a Significant Position of Authority(TM) at the NIH knew about that) made any difference whatsoever?
I agree. I expect that the database was accepted everywhere because it existed and there is no freely available competitor that I know of - so the alternative would be to do all your research yourself (as does Microsoft, for example, as far as I know). And because the contents have been found to be reasonably accurate and updates timely, of course. I doubt that the person of Mr Olson and/or his affiliation with NIH had much to do with acceptance rates. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
On 10/20/2011 11:29 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
That said - the TZ data is used in virtually all commercial and electronic document/instrument processing systems operational today. Including the ones running on operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, that don't use the Olson database? Well - ask yourself whether legally enforceable transactions are occurring on those platforms? If so then yes...
The problem is that the Time Zone data itself (while created through a standards process) The daylight savings time rules in various countries are created through various governmental processes in those countries; it might be done by legislative action or executive fiat. I'm not sure I'd call that a "standards process" of any sort. How is it any different that a consensus vote in an IETF WG?
The Olson time zone database is created by a process of "people send e-mails to the tz list about changes by various governments, they get discussed on the list, and changes get made and a new release goes out the door". I'm not sure I'd call that a "standards process" of any sort, either. OK lets see - content is vetted on the list for inclusion... seems like a process that a SDO would design.
has largely been managed as an ad-hoc offering and this was accepted everywhere because the party and hosting entity for this were the US Government NIH and Dr. Olson. Do you have any evidence to show that the fact that Mr. Olson happens to work at the US National Institute of Health, and that the US National Institute of Health lets (or let) him store it on one of their FTP servers (I don't even know whether anybody in a Significant Position of Authority(TM) at the NIH knew about that) made any difference whatsoever?
yes, and lots of it.
But with the good Dr.s retirement there is a need to formalize this process and expand its controls so that the data remains both properly managed and available to all. So the question is how to do that, I suspect most people here think that "how to do that" is "Keep Calm and Carry On", and are skeptical, based on their experiences with the way the list works and governments work, that any more formal requirements would help, and might even suspect they'd get in the way.
I totally understand that perception.
and I have pushed back that this effort is much more important and needs to be managed outside an IETF process because of the lack of control the IETF has designed into its framework.
This specific project is one which needs a level of oversight that the IETF process doesnt put in place for changes and content updates to the DB.
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base and have that processed in a fixed timeframe outside of any continued IETF review. The way they request an update is "send a mail message to the tz list, just like anybody else".
yes, but now that there is a non-audited system processing this content, some other formal oversight is needed.
This is not an excuse to make a new IETF WG to control the world... its about letting the world operate in a manner which doesnt impose the IETF's judgement or political opinions on anyone either.
That said my proposal is to morph the current I-D by adding an inline update process to the CONTENT RECORDS of the DB and a NEW RECORD Addition Policy and Practice through IANA and not the IETF. Where in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-02.html
is significant power over the process assigned to the IETF, to the extent that we need to worry about "IETF review" getting in the way, or "the IETF's judgement or political opinions" becoming significant, short of a couple of mentions of the IESG?
the WG review portions. The WG itself should have nothing to say about what is published only how the data published is used. todd
-- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947.
On 10/20/2011 12:41 PM, Todd Glassey wrote:
This specific project is one which needs a level of oversight that the IETF process doesnt put in place for changes and content updates to the DB.
What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base and have that processed in a fixed timeframe outside of any continued IETF review. This is not an excuse to make a new IETF WG to control the world... its about letting the world operate in a manner which doesnt impose the IETF's judgement or political opinions on anyone either.
It strikes me that the current informal process - only with the co-ordinator replaced because of Olson's retirement - is nearly ideal. It's highly responsive; urgent tzdata updates go out immediately. And the informality is a great advantage in light of the fact that many timezones are contentious. As soon as you try to qualify 'legal authorities,' you'll reopen many cans of worms. The PRC will almost certainly attempt to assert authority over Asia/Taipei, and *will* report Asia/Urumqi as an error (the local ethnic minority sets their clocks differently from what the government proclaims; the tzdata tracks both). Israel and Palestine will contend over the setting of the clocks in Asia/Hebron. State governments in Argentina will conflict with the Argentine central government in the setting of the clock in their localities. The list is nearly endless. In all cases, the tzdata tries to present either the way clocks are set on the ground, or to provide alternatives that describe both of two competing authorities. It's historically served that purpose well. IESG would be well advised not to debate changes, but to delegate them to those that do the work. And attempts to qualify formally who is and is not allowed to propose changes, given the realities of political instability, are simply going to introduce layers of bureaucracy and bring the database further from what is actually happening on the ground. The question of 'if I look at the clock on the wall in locale X, what is it likely to read?' is often not answered correctly by any government. This is not like the definition of the second, or the current value of UTC-UT1, or the coordination of TAI. In those cases, the only people who have the luxury of caring about the details work in regions with stable governments that co-operate in technical exchange. (The rest of the world just wants GPS to work.) The formal processes of organizations like IERS are appropriate there. But I just can't see how they can work in the free-for-all that is the setting of the time zone. Don't fix what ain't broke. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
On 10/20/2011 6:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
It strikes me that the current informal process - [...] Don't fix what ain't broke.
Can't agree more with the whole message. Well said, and exactly to the point. As for the specific question of kre as TZ coordinator, I think we could not have dreamed of a better outcome. Sincere thanks to Robert for stepping in, and of course my full support. Eric.
Same here. That was well reasoned and clearly expressed. It also implies that the discussion in another thread (ask the UN for help) is not likely to be the effective answer. It has all the problems Kevin described, just for starters. paul From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Eric Muller Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:03 AM To: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Introduction and apology for slamming you "with that TZ is a legal thing" commentary out of the blue. On 10/20/2011 6:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: It strikes me that the current informal process - [...] Don't fix what ain't broke. Can't agree more with the whole message. Well said, and exactly to the point. As for the specific question of kre as TZ coordinator, I think we could not have dreamed of a better outcome. Sincere thanks to Robert for stepping in, and of course my full support. Eric.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 13:45, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
It also implies that the discussion in another thread (ask the UN for help) is not likely to be the effective answer. It has all the problems Kevin described, just for starters.
If country/UN input were the only input, then yes. If it is just an additional source of input, perhaps even one that is more timely and authoritative, then I think not. It would be up to the coordinator to act as editor and choose which updates to accept and which to reject, just like now, or so I envision it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
I don't think we can rely on country/UN as the only input. Consider what happened in Argentina a couple of years ago, when summer time was decreed by the central federal government but was not followed by San Luis and other provinces. If we were to only rely on country input we would have probably missed the other side of the story. Un abrazo, Carlos Perasso On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:07, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 13:45, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
It also implies that the discussion in another thread (ask the UN for help) is not likely to be the effective answer. It has all the problems Kevin described, just for starters.
If country/UN input were the only input, then yes. If it is just an additional source of input, perhaps even one that is more timely and authoritative, then I think not. It would be up to the coordinator to act as editor and choose which updates to accept and which to reject, just like now, or so I envision it.
Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
True. One more potential source of input, to be considered authoritative or not as circumstances indicate. Kevin listed some places where "not" would apply -- locations subject to jurisdictional disputes are an example. paul -----Original Message----- From: Philip Newton [mailto:philip.newton@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:08 AM To: Koning, Paul; tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Introduction and apology for slamming you "with that TZ is a legal thing" commentary out of the blue. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 13:45, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
It also implies that the discussion in another thread (ask the UN for help) is not likely to be the effective answer. It has all the problems Kevin described, just for starters.
If country/UN input were the only input, then yes. If it is just an additional source of input, perhaps even one that is more timely and authoritative, then I think not. It would be up to the coordinator to act as editor and choose which updates to accept and which to reject, just like now, or so I envision it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
I have not chimed in on the list for a number of years, but have continued to monitor and wanted to add my 2 cents. I too agree with both sentiments below. 1) Keep the current informal process. It has a proven track record of success. 2) I also support kre as TZ coordinator, for whatever term he is willing to serve. best, Tom On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
Same here. That was well reasoned and clearly expressed.****
** **
It also implies that the discussion in another thread (ask the UN for help) is not likely to be the effective answer. It has all the problems Kevin described, just for starters.****
** **
paul****
** **
*From:* tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric Muller *Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2011 12:03 AM *To:* tz@iana.org *Subject:* Re: [tz] Introduction and apology for slamming you "with that TZ is a legal thing" commentary out of the blue.****
** **
On 10/20/2011 6:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: ****
It strikes me that the current informal process - [...] Don't fix what ain't broke.****
Can't agree more with the whole message. Well said, and exactly to the point.
As for the specific question of kre as TZ coordinator, I think we could not have dreamed of a better outcome. Sincere thanks to Robert for stepping in, and of course my full support.
Eric.****
As someone who has been following this list for a few years, and even made a couple of contributions to the data, I think the current mechanism is just fine. It's not as though people are simply pulling changes out of a hat. People with a genuine, vested interest in accurate time information (like the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile in my case) are assisting in the timely and accurate compilation of that information. At least some cases, the "informal" process depends on pre-existing formal mechanisms. For example, U.S. time information (DST rules, official time, etc.), can be found at NIST Time and Frequency Division and the USNO Time Service Department: http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/ http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ http://www.time.gov/ while for Chile, the same information can be found at the Servicio Hidrográfico y Oceanográfico (SHOA): http://www.horaoficial.cl/index.htm and the raw text database generally contains references to these formal web sites in the commentary, as well as to newspaper articles or other external sources, whenever a change is made. (In fact, there is an astounding amount of commentary in the raw text database, some of which I have contributed for Chile.) Perhaps the textual databases should contain a list of these official time sources for each country? Maybe the official URLs (when available) could even be made accessible through the API in some way, rather than just in the text commentary (or maybe not; I'm not sure whether this is a good idea or not; I'm just opening it for discussion)? In some cases, as has been pointed out, the "formal" mechanisms are insufficient; the database is intended to represent how people actually set their clocks, rather than how governments say people should set their clocks. The database also contains considerable historical information, which the offical sources don't always make available (though the SHOA has a very nice summary at http://www.horaoficial.cl/horaof.htm which sometime I should compare with the database to see if it's accurate.) "Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You got me monologuing! I can't believe it... " -G. -- Glenn Eychaner (geychaner@lco.cl) Telescope Systems Programmer, Las Campanas Observatory
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 14:05, Glenn Eychaner <geychaner@mac.com> wrote:
At least some cases, the "informal" process depends on pre-existing formal mechanisms. For example, U.S. time information (DST rules, official time, etc.), can be found at NIST Time and Frequency Division and the USNO Time Service Department:
Very interesting. Would there be any interest in adding information like this to the README file? I work in a large company with engineers from around the globe and could poll them to find other sources. I would be happy to collect information from them and others here on official sources to add to the README or maybe a SOURCES file or something of that nature. As kre and ado both pointed out, someone newer with less experience will eventually need to take over. Documenting information like this would be helpful to someone who wants to do that. Kevin -- Kevin Lyda Dublin, Ireland US Citizen overseas? We can vote. Register now: http://www.votefromabroad.org/
Alas, …Asia/Urumqi does actually remain in error on OlsonDB despite the aspirations of the local population AND official (local) policy (not that I am in any way advocating a role on the list for legal authorities!) TZdata only tracks the time most (Han) Chinese use in Xinjiang, although they themselves would never consider that time as 'local time'. -mld On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
As soon as you try to qualify 'legal authorities,' you'll reopen many cans of worms. The PRC will almost certainly attempt to assert authority over Asia/Taipei, and *will* report Asia/Urumqi as an error (the local ethnic minority sets their clocks differently from what the government proclaims; the tzdata tracks both).
That should read: "aspirations of the local ethic population" On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Luther Ma wrote:
Alas, …Asia/Urumqi does actually remain in error on OlsonDB despite the aspirations of the local population AND ...
On 10/21/11 3:10 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
IESG would be well advised not to debate changes, but to delegate them to those that do the work.
This is exactly the plan. There's a pretty high bar set for the IESG to get involved. Think about it: you guys all do the work, and you do a great job. Why would anyone want to screw that up? Eliot
participants (14)
-
Carlos Raúl Perasso -
Eliot Lear -
Eric Muller -
Glenn Eychaner -
Guy Harris -
Kevin Kenny -
Kevin Lyda -
Luther Ma -
Paul_Koning＠Dell.com -
Peter Ilieve -
Philip Newton -
SM -
Todd Glassey -
Tom Peterson