Paulo is not on the time zone mailing list; direct replies appropriately. --ado -----Original Message----- From: Paulo Alexandre Pinto Pires [mailto:p@ppires.org] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:16 PM To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: About rules for Brazil Hello, folks. I have recently downloaded tzdata 2002d, which brings new rules for Brazil again, because the government again changed when summer time starts. I suggest that rules for Brazil don't ever be considered permanent, i.e., make no use of "max" for new rules, but instead use "only". Regardless of a public poll at National Obversatory's (ON is the official source of time information for the country) web site, to learn if Brazilians would like to have fixed dates for start and end of summer time, the dates were changed again because of plain stupidity -- Electoral authorities forgot about summer time at all, and because of stupid machine programming, start of summer time had to be delayed. It is certain that the new rules will not be used in the next year, when there will be no elections, and this delay (hopefully) will not be necessary. Reading the source file for timezone data for Brazil is a joke. Things like a mayor who tries to change time in his city, and authorities forgetting about summer time in planning important occasions are everywhere. Not having fixed rules is a major cause of such a mess. This year, the decree stating that summer time should begin not on the second Sunday of October (yet no such decree ever existed before -- each ear a _new_ decree said "it starts on day X and ends on day Y"), but later, was published by the end of its first week, and not reflected on ON's web site, where most of us used to find such rules. The result is that many people, again, had their clocks wrong. I believe that if clocks eventually go wrong, it would be better if they just remained in the regular time. The effect of not advancing the clock causes less impact (and surprises) than having it unexpectly be one hour ahead.of what users think it should be, because of assuming that rules for the previous year will be used again (even though it sounds very reasonable to our technical ears). So, we now have Rule Brazil 2001 max - Feb Sun>=15 0:00 0 - Rule Brazil 2002 only - Nov 3 0:00 1:00 S Rule Brazil 2003 max - Oct Sun>=8 0:00 1:00 S but this is wrong, if nothing else, at least because of one very simple reason (already mentioned): "Oct Sun>=8" or "Feb Sun>=15" may look like a good aproach, and result of careful observation by some of us, but they are not in any previous decree, and assuming it may fail in the future again (and it fails in the past too, if we start looking back. as far as 1998 and before). Let's not go beyong the facts we know, that is we know when summer time starts in 2002 and ends in 2003, and nothing more. Besides that, let those of us who are Brazilians try to push the goverment into using permanent criterion, so that mess doesn't happen again. (BTW, I didn't have problems this year, because when I noticed that ON didn't publish anything until last year's start date was to close, I dug the Net and found this year's decree). -- Pappires ... Qui habet aurem audiat quid Spiritus dicat ecclesiis.
From: Paulo Alexandre Pinto Pires [mailto:p@ppires.org] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:16 PM
Reading the source file for timezone data for Brazil is a joke.
It's an amusing story that has been repeated in many countries. Here's a (non-Brazil) example that I plan to incorporate in my next set of patches, along with a correction to America/Phoenix for 1944: Between 1944-01-01 and 1944-04-01 the State of Arizona used standard time, but by federal law railroads, airlines, bus lines, military personnel, and some engaged in interstate commerce continued to observe war (i.e., daylight saving) time. So it's not just a story about the mayor of Rio de Janeiro whose name I can't recall; it's also about Sidney P. Osborn, governor of Arizona from 1941 to 1948, a powerful politician who fought the federal imposition of daylight-saving time.
I believe that if clocks eventually go wrong, it would be better if they just remained in the regular time.
In this month's case you would be right, of course; but I suspect that it will be just as common for the clocks to be advanced ahead of our guess as behind, and there your proposed strategy would fail just as badly as the tz database's current approach. So the question is: is it more common for DST changes to be unexpectedly delayed (where your proposed strategy wins), or for DST changes to come through at the guessed time (where the current tz strategy wins)? To answer this question, I compared the current prediction for Brazil (Oct Sun>=8 to Feb Sun>=15) to the actual dates since this prediction was added to the tz database on 1999-02-01. We have: actual date: The predicted date was: 1999-02-21 correct 1999-10-03 late 2000-02-27 early 2000-10-08 correct 2001-02-18 correct 2001-10-14 correct 2002-02-17 correct 2002-11-03 early So your proposed strategy would have been better on two occasions, worse on five, and the same on one. A similar situation obtains in Israel, where the guesses after 2004 are quite arbitrary. However, for the few applications that need access to future civial time (planning airplane trips?) I think it better to have a good guess than to guess that there will be no DST at all.
Besides that, let those of us who are Brazilians try to push the goverment into using permanent criterion
You might look into Arizona's current solution: no DST whatsoever.
participants (2)
-
Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) -
Paul Eggert