EU Public Consultation on summertime arrangements

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/2018-summertime-arrangements_en
Objective of the consultation
Following a number of requests from citizens, from the European Parliament, and from certain EU Member States, the Commission has decided to investigate the functioning of the current EU summertime arrangements and to assess whether or not they should be changed.
In this context, the Commission is interested in gathering the views of European citizens, stakeholders and Member States on the current EU summertime arrangements and on any potential change to those arrangements.

John Wilcock wrote:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/2018-summertime-arrangements_en
Thanks for the heads-up. A draft comment to the EU is attached.

I'm surprised a consultation by the EU hasn't provoked more comment here. Anyway... I'm not entirely convinced your second point is clear enough for bureaucrats not familiar with all the underlying concepts to understand.
[...] if the European Union elected to go to permanent daylight saving, there's a good chance the Time Zone Database would model it as permanent standard time: for example, it would model permanent Central European Summer Time (CEST, UTC +02) not as daylight saving time, but as either permanent Eastern European Time (EET, UTC +02), or as a standard time whose name happened to end "Summer Time".
Surely tz could/would simply define new Western, Central and Eastern European Standard Time zones and assign the relevant locations to them as from the transition date, rather than "model" them to existing zones? Or are you suggesting that systems that aren't properly updated would present misleading names to users?
Although this may seem like a small point as the UTC offsets of CEST and EET are identical, having multiple names for the same permanent time zone would undoubtedly confuse users and operators of computers, cell phones, and the like. For this reason, if the twice-yearly clock change is abolished, the EU should simply move time zone boundaries rather than proclaim "permanent summer time" in some areas.
It occurs to me that the EU might well decide to leave the boundaries as they are, and merely change the UTC offsets. How about "To minimise potential confusion, the EU should simply proclaim new UTC offsets for the 'standard time' in each zone and, if applicable, define any changes in zone boundaries"? Just my €0.02! -- John

Further to my earlier comment, I've realised that I read the consultation document too quickly! The last section makes clear that the only thing to be decided at EU level is the summer time *regime*, and specifically whether to keep the existing arrangements whereby all member states change to summer time simultaneously, or to prohibit summer time for all member states. It will remain up to individual member states to choose and define their own time zone. As a result your official response probably ought to be reworded to take this division of responsibilities into account. -- John

On 2018-07-09 01:25, John Wilcock wrote:
I'm surprised a consultation by the EU hasn't provoked more comment here. Anyway...
It still comes down to each country's ministers, government politicians, or parliamentary members deciding or voting on which UTC offset to follow. Nothing anyone on this group can do to influence those decisions, except encourage them to provide sufficient advance notice that give large software vendors, like MS, RedHat, Oracle, Apple, Google, and their OEMs and carriers, a sufficient number of months to push changes thru their implementation, QA, and release processes at their normal, glacial pace. Most Android phones (or tablets) over a couple of years old will no longer be getting any updates, unless the EU adds directives mandating changes be pushed to older devices. If DST is abolished, the tzdb common EU rule gets changed to terminate DST changes as of the change date. If a country changes its UTC offset, the tzdb entry for the reference city in that zone gets updated with the change date and changed UTC offset. This will be similar to the 2007 North American change where the tzdb common US and Canada rules were updated with the new switch dates criteria, and each time zone's entry changed, if required, as each state, province, regional, or national government made official announcements available on the web. It would be helpful for everyone if the EU tracked all these legislative time zone changes, including links, in a common document, possibly appending membership candidates, potential candidates, Schengen area, and other European countries not in the EU, who have decided to make a concurrent related change.
I'm not entirely convinced your second point is clear enough for bureaucrats not familiar with all the underlying concepts to understand.
[...] if the European Union elected to go to permanent daylight saving, there's a good chance the Time Zone Database would model it as permanent standard time: for example, it would model permanent Central European Summer Time (CEST, UTC +02) not as daylight saving time, but as either permanent Eastern European Time (EET, UTC +02), or as a standard time whose name happened to end "Summer Time".
Surely tz could/would simply define new Western, Central and Eastern European Standard Time zones and assign the relevant locations to them as from the transition date, rather than "model" them to existing zones? Or are you suggesting that systems that aren't properly updated would present misleading names to users?
WET, CET, EET, and related summer time zones have defined meanings, and are also used by other non-EU countries, who may continue to observe DST or not. It would make no sense to change names which are understood, to have different meanings, depending on whether a country had EU membership.
Although this may seem like a small point as the UTC offsets of CEST and EET are identical, having multiple names for the same permanent time zone would undoubtedly confuse users and operators of computers, cell phones, and the like. For this reason, if the twice-yearly clock change is abolished, the EU should simply move time zone boundaries rather than proclaim "permanent summer time" in some areas.
It occurs to me that the EU might well decide to leave the boundaries as they are, and merely change the UTC offsets. How about "To minimise potential confusion, the EU should simply proclaim new UTC offsets for the 'standard time' in each zone and, if applicable, define any changes in zone boundaries"?
Each country will decide on its own UTC offset, and any changes will be applied to the time zone named after the reference city, so the "zone boundaries" will be implied by the offsets observed by the residents of the regions. Andorra, Moldova, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, and the Vatican may decide to follow the adjacent regions or may differ about changes and/or summer time. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Surely tz could/would simply define new Western, Central and Eastern European Standard Time zones and assign the relevant locations to them as from the transition date, rather than "model" them to existing zones? Or are you suggesting that systems that aren't properly updated would present misleading names to users?
WET, CET, EET, and related summer time zones have defined meanings, and are also used by other non-EU countries, who may continue to observe DST or not. It would make no sense to change names which are understood, to have different meanings, depending on whether a country had EU membership.
Ultimately, official and/or public usage will determine the names that are actually used -- and presumably the tz database will track that actual usage. IMO, if the EU decides to mandate that its member states must cease to observe summer time, and the EU or the member states further decide (as would seem quite likely) to keep using WET/CET/EET as time zone abbreviations then, given the importance of the EU within the wider European region, any non-EU countries using one of the current WET/CET/EET will have little choice but to align with the changes or find a new name for their time zone. -- John

On 2018-07-09 09:38, John Wilcock wrote:
Surely tz could/would simply define new Western, Central and Eastern European Standard Time zones and assign the relevant locations to them as from the transition date, rather than "model" them to existing zones? Or are you suggesting that systems that aren't properly updated would present misleading names to users?
WET, CET, EET, and related summer time zones have defined meanings, and are also used by other non-EU countries, who may continue to observe DST or not. It would make no sense to change names which are understood, to have different meanings, depending on whether a country had EU membership.
Ultimately, official and/or public usage will determine the names that are actually used -- and presumably the tz database will track that actual usage.
If widely used about that zone in English language web sources; what is used by systems for any zone and locale is their UI choice, sometimes that defined in the Unicode CLDR cultural data repository, used by the ICU package and library.
IMO, if the EU decides to mandate that its member states must cease to observe summer time, and the EU or the member states further decide (as would seem quite likely) to keep using WET/CET/EET as time zone abbreviations then, given the importance of the EU within the wider European region, any non-EU countries using one of the current WET/CET/EET will have little choice but to align with the changes or find a new name for their time zone.
This project does not consider abbreviations canonical, so if English language web sources widely refer to different zone times using the same abbreviation, they are defined as such, e.g. EST in AU and US, IST in a number of countries. Many such abbreviations not widely used about that zone in English language web sources have been dropped, and zone entries cleaned up to use only the UTC offset text e.g. +01 instead of CET. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

John Wilcock wrote:
I'm surprised a consultation by the EU hasn't provoked more comment here.
It *is* summer....
I'm not entirely convinced your second point is clear enough for bureaucrats not familiar with all the underlying concepts to understand.
Yes, it can use some work. I rewrote that second point and am attaching a revised proposed comment, where it appears as the paragraphs numbered (3) and (4). This update also reflects Brian Inglis's remarks (thanks!), as part of the paragraph numbered (2) in the attached.
Surely tz could/would simply define new Western, Central and Eastern European Standard Time zones and assign the relevant locations to them
Yes, although this would be done indirectly, by updating the existing entries Europe/Berlin, Europ/Paris etc., rather than by defining new Zones. There won't be a problem fixing the UTC offsets for these entries. The only issues are (1) what time zone abbreviations the new timestamps will have, and (2) whether the new timestamps will be considered to be daylight saving time.

Paul Eggert said: The term in the Directive is "summer time", not "daylight saving time". Please use it.
2. If the EU rules are changed, the EU should record in a public document its member states' related changes to civil time, so that interested parties can easily track European timekeeping changes. For best results, the document should also keep track of changes to civil time in membership candidates, potential candidates, Schengen area, and other countries not in the EU that decide to make a related change.
Add EEA countries at the start of the list, before membership countries. Make it clear that we understand that this would be a purely informative document with no authority behind it.
4. If the EU abolishes the twice-yearly clock changes, time zone names should be specified to help avoid confusion. For example, if France decides to stay on UTC +02 all year, the TZDB natural default will be to call France's new time zone "Eastern European Time (EET)", due to the long association between "EET" and UTC +02. The EU should suggest this terminology (or some other terminology, if it prefers) to help interested parties discuss and understand the new timekeeping clearly.
"TZDB natural default" is likely to confuse them. Phrase things without using TZDB; for example: "all year, many people would naturally call France's new time zone "Eastern European Time (EET)" due to the long association ..." -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
The term in the Directive is "summer time", not "daylight saving time".
OK, it's changed to "summertime" in the revised draft (attached). I omitted the space between "summer" and "time" because that's how it's spelled in the questionnaire. The attached draft also reflects your other comments. Thanks.

On 2018-07-09 13:17, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Paul Eggert said:
2. If the EU rules are changed, the EU should record in a public document its member states' related changes to civil time, so that interested parties can easily track European timekeeping changes. For best results, the document should also keep track of changes to civil time in membership candidates, potential candidates, Schengen area, and other countries not in the EU that decide to make a related change.
Add EEA countries at the start of the list, before membership countries.
It's unclear what force EU time directives have on EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) or EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) countries, and they can only influence Andorra, Moldova, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican.
4. If the EU abolishes the twice-yearly clock changes, time zone names should be specified to help avoid confusion. For example, if France decides to stay on UTC +02 all year, the TZDB natural default will be to call France's new time zone "Eastern European Time (EET)", due to the long association between "EET" and UTC +02. The EU should suggest this terminology (or some other terminology, if it prefers) to help interested parties discuss and understand the new timekeeping clearly. Suggest they use existing English terminology where applicable, or invent new English terminology where required, to avoid confusion around the change, as the project does not consider localization, which should be addressed to the Unicode CLDR project, and/or directly to major software vendors.
-- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

"TZDB natural default" is likely to confuse them. Phrase things without using TZDB; for example:
"all year, many people would naturally call France's new time zone "Eastern European Time (EET)" due to the long association ..."
I disagree - if they were aware that France was being referred to, *people* (at least those people with the slightest awareness of European geography) would not naturally do this, given that France is quite clearly not in the eastern part of Europe! Non-updated computer systems, on the other hand, might well associate UTC+02 with EET by default.
For best results, the document should also keep track of changes to civil time in EEA countries, membership candidates, potential candidates, Schengen area, and other countries not in the EU that decide to make a related change. This document would be purely informative, with no authority behind it.
I'd change "EEA" to "EEA/EFTA" so as to include Switzerland. The terms used by the EU are "candidate countries" (not "membership candidates") and "potential candidates". I don't see the relevance of "Schengen area" - all current and potential Schengen area countries are either EU or EEA/EFTA members. And of course the future status of the UK with regard to all of these entities is unknown at present, though in all eventualities it will at least be covered by "other countries not in the EU" - unless it backs out of Brexit at the last minute, in which case it would remain a member state :-) -- John

On 2018-07-10 06:32, John Wilcock wrote:
"TZDB natural default" is likely to confuse them. Phrase things without using TZDB; for example:
"all year, many people would naturally call France's new time zone "Eastern European Time (EET)" due to the long association ..."
I disagree - if they were aware that France was being referred to, *people* (at least those people with the slightest awareness of European geography) would not naturally do this, given that France is quite clearly not in the eastern part of Europe! Non-updated computer systems, on the other hand, might well associate UTC+02 with EET by default.
Most people are probably not that aware of European geography, nor care what English speakers call European time zones informally; the situation is similar for Australia, North America, Russia. Abbreviations are not canonical, so don't have to make sense, but must be widely used in English language sources, or existing WET/CET/EET or recent practice GMT/+01/+02 are likely to be used.
For best results, the document should also keep track of changes to civil time in EEA countries, membership candidates, potential candidates, Schengen area, and other countries not in the EU that decide to make a related change. This document would be purely informative, with no authority behind it.
I'd change "EEA" to "EEA/EFTA" so as to include Switzerland.
The terms used by the EU are "candidate countries" (not "membership candidates") and "potential candidates".
Those terms are used in the EU's list of EU countries.
I don't see the relevance of "Schengen area" - all current and potential Schengen area countries are either EU or EEA/EFTA members.
The Schengen Area also includes non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican, which have not signed the Schengen agreement, but have no borders, so are de facto included.
And of course the future status of the UK with regard to all of these entities is unknown at present, though in all eventualities it will at least be covered by "other countries not in the EU" - unless it backs out of Brexit at the last minute, in which case it would remain a member state :-)
Who knows? -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

I tried to adjust the draft according to recent comments, as follows: * Mention EEA and EFTA and Shengen, with the proposed terminology change, the point being to be as inclusive as possible. * Suggest that EU specify time zone names in the EU languages, not just English. Mention CLDR as something that could use this. * Change "many people" to "many English-language systems" would likely say "Eastern European Time (EET)" for French time. Mention CLDR as one such. Please see attached.

Paul Eggert said:
For example, if France decides to stay on UTC +02 all year, many English-language systems would likely call France???s new time zone ???Eastern European Time (EET)???, due to the long association between EET and UTC +02. The EU should suggest this terminology (or some other terminology, if it prefers) to help interested parties discuss and understand the new timekeeping clearly.
I've figured out what is bothering me about this wording. The point we're trying to get across is that the new French zone should *NOT* be called "CET" because many systems will associate that with UTC+01. So we need to (a) say this explicitly and (b) be clear that "other terminology" mustn't include CET (or CEST, for the reason given earlier). -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646

Le 11/07/2018 à 12:48, Clive D.W. Feather a écrit :
Paul Eggert said:
For example, if France decides to stay on UTC +02 all year, many English-language systems would likely call France???s new time zone ???Eastern European Time (EET)???, due to the long association between EET and UTC +02. The EU should suggest this terminology (or some other terminology, if it prefers) to help interested parties discuss and understand the new timekeeping clearly. I've figured out what is bothering me about this wording.
The point we're trying to get across is that the new French zone should *NOT* be called "CET" because many systems will associate that with UTC+01. So we need to (a) say this explicitly and (b) be clear that "other terminology" mustn't include CET (or CEST, for the reason given earlier). As an interested outsider to the TZ project, what bothers *me* is that, should a number of countries in central Europe decide, under hypothetical new EU arrangements, to shift from UTC+01/02 to year-round UTC+02, they would be advised against retaining the "Central European Time" label.
Surely there are ways for TZ and other existing systems to accommodate such a change in the meaning of a time zone name? -- John

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:55 +0200 From: John Wilcock <john@tradoc.fr> Message-ID: <d826b397-e5ff-51a1-bdd1-3e117796ac56@tradoc.fr> | Surely there are ways for TZ and other existing systems to accommodate | such a change in the meaning of a time zone name? TZ doesn't care really, so that's not an issue. However there is lots of other code which believes it sane to parse the zone acronym and draw conclusions from it (that is, if "CET" appears, it must mean UTC+01 and if CEST is there, it must mean UTC+02). That's horribly unreliable, and should be squashed. But it is more widespread than you'd think. kre

Le 11/07/2018 à 14:39, Robert Elz a écrit :
TZ doesn't care really, so that's not an issue.
However there is lots of other code which believes it sane to parse the zone acronym and draw conclusions from it (that is, if "CET" appears, it must mean UTC+01 and if CEST is there, it must mean UTC+02). That's horribly unreliable, and should be squashed. But it is more widespread than you'd think.
No doubt - but I would venture to suggest that this is comparable to pre-Y2K code that believed two-digit years were sane! Thankfully, code that used such logic was indeed squashed when the assumption was proven invalid :-) The existence of such code is not a sound basis, IMO, for adding a recommendation to refrain from changing the meaning of the current abbreviations (though admittedly it can do no harm to point out that such code does exist). One might even hope that a change of this nature affecting a major world region such as the EU would result in a Y2K-like trigger to clean up code that handles time zones... -- John

On 2018-07-11 07:58, John Wilcock wrote:
Le 11/07/2018 à 14:39, Robert Elz a écrit :
TZ doesn't care really, so that's not an issue.
However there is lots of other code which believes it sane to parse the zone acronym and draw conclusions from it (that is, if "CET" appears, it must mean UTC+01 and if CEST is there, it must mean UTC+02). That's horribly unreliable, and should be squashed. But it is more widespread than you'd think.
Oracle DBs and Java appear to use those ids in lieu of sensible time zone ids, and PostGres SQL ignores changes that don't fit their standard legacy model. POSIX still does not support e.g. Irish Standard Time properly, nor this project's time zones.
No doubt - but I would venture to suggest that this is comparable to pre-Y2K code that believed two-digit years were sane! Thankfully, code that used such logic was indeed squashed when the assumption was proven invalid :-)
The existence of such code is not a sound basis, IMO, for adding a recommendation to refrain from changing the meaning of the current abbreviations (though admittedly it can do no harm to point out that such code does exist).
Changing the meaning of time zone name and abbreviation definitions that existed prior to computers, and ignoring that many systems may not be changed to reflect any changes the EU committees come up with, whenever they get around to that, is not a sound basis for making such a change. All historical references prior to the change will have different meanings than the new convention, and all references in legislation will have to be changed, so adoption by countries may be staggered, depending on whether they have to areas that observe time in other zones for economic reasons. This project documents which legislated time is adopted where and when.
One might even hope that a change of this nature affecting a major world region such as the EU would result in a Y2K-like trigger to clean up code that handles time zones...
Vendors would have to rearchitect their systems to handle time zones as documented in this project: if customers are not going to spend money with them for better time zone support, they will not even look at the impact. I don't see any schedule or timetable anywhere, which means vendors will assume no changes will be agreed, and won't waste time on it, until legislative changes are made with sufficiently long lead time. Otherwise, they will document and publish a workaround, and maybe add the work to the end of the queue, for the interns to handle. Multiple occurrences per year of problems have not convinced vendors to fix their legacy practices, so they either ignore the change and suggest workarounds (if you are in CET, select EET), or leave it to downstream app developers to deal with. This project leaves it to the downstream platform or distro suppliers to deal with. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

On 2018-07-11 11:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
Brian Inglis wrote:
POSIX still does not support e.g. Irish Standard Time properly
Sorry, I don't understand this remark, as POSIX does support Irish Standard Time as per current Irish law and common practice, using a TZ setting like this:
TZ='IST-1GMT0,M10.5.0,M3.5.0/1'
Sorry I thought that was one of the problematic zone rules, other than those based on non-Gregorian calendars, and those with Ramadan exceptions. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

John Wilcock wrote:
The existence of such code is not a sound basis, IMO, for adding a recommendation to refrain from changing the meaning of the current abbreviations (though admittedly it can do no harm to point out that such code does exist).
How about appending a sentence like the following in the next draft? --- If the EU suggests new terminology, it should bear in mind the confusion that would ensue if the EU gave new meanings to existing names; for example, if a new French UTC +02 zone is called “Central European Time (CET)”, many existing applications that assume that CET is UTC +01 will misbehave.

On 2018-07-11 17:21, Paul Eggert wrote:
How about appending a sentence like the following in the next draft?
If the EU suggests new terminology, it should bear in mind the confusion that would ensue if the EU gave new meanings to existing names; for example, if a new French UTC +02 zone is called “Central European Time (CET)”, many existing applications that assume that CET is UTC +01 will misbehave.
Maybe it is more confusing than helpful. I do not think that the names of time scale are considered to be EU business by anyone in the EU -- the EU follow the principle of subsidiarity which defers decisions with local scope to the locals. Time scale names are currently regulated only by the member countries. For instance, countries with the same time scale (eg Ireland, Britain, Portugal) have chosen different names, and there is no chance that any EU directive will "suggest" names. The EU questionnaire is only about the application of summer time, not about the names for winter and summer times. By the way, names in Europe can be a very sensitive matter anyway (think of Macedonian Winter Time MWT). And the names "Central European Time",.. and acronyms "CET",.. designate time scales, not zones. It is just (bad) tzdb lingo to use "zone" when a time scale is meant. So I think the stakes of tzdb in the EU questionnaire are restricted to request enough lead time between the EU decision on a potential change, including the implementation in the law of member countries, and the date of its coming into force. Michael Deckers.

On 2018-07-11 14:28, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
On 2018-07-11 17:21, Paul Eggert wrote:
How about appending a sentence like the following in the next draft? If the EU suggests new terminology, it should bear in mind the confusion that would ensue if the EU gave new meanings to existing names; for example, if a new French UTC +02 zone is called “Central European Time (CET)”, many existing applications that assume that CET is UTC +01 will misbehave. Maybe it is more confusing than helpful. I do not think that the names of time scale are considered to be EU business by anyone in the EU -- the EU follow the principle of subsidiarity which defers decisions with local scope to the locals. Time scale names are currently regulated only by the member countries. For instance, countries with the same time scale (eg Ireland, Britain, Portugal) have chosen different names, and there is no chance that any EU directive will "suggest" names. The EU questionnaire is only about the application of summer time, not about the names for winter and summer times. By the way, names in Europe can be a very sensitive matter anyway (think of Macedonian Winter Time MWT).
It is apparent that elimination of summer time may result in some, perhaps many, countries realigning their standard time, perhaps to pre-WWII UTC offsets, or whatever they consider to have the most desirable impact on their society.
And the names "Central European Time",.. and acronyms "CET",.. designate time scales, not zones. It is just (bad) tzdb lingo to use "zone" when a time scale is meant.
UTC, TAI, TT, GPS, etc. are considered time scales: that term does not seem to be commonly used of time zone names or UTC offsets in English. Central European Time is the English localization of various EU and North African UTC+1 time zones and CET the abbreviation, all of which are referred to as time zones in common usage, and by some computer systems and applications.
So I think the stakes of tzdb in the EU questionnaire are restricted to request enough lead time between the EU decision on a potential change, including the implementation in the law of member countries, and the date of its coming into force.
Technically that is true, and the project will document and implement whatever decisions the EU and affected countries may eventually make, but they are also interested in views on any potential change, and we can forward feedback from the project on issues that recur perennially, -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

On 2018-07-11 23:58, Brian Inglis wrote:
Central European Time is the English localization of various EU and North African UTC+1 time zones and CET the abbreviation, all of which are referred to as time zones in common usage, and by some computer systems and applications.
A time zone is a region on the Earth's surface, as any dictionary tells us; but "Central European Time" is not a region but (an English name for) a measure of time used in one of these time zones. Exact wording helps (not only) when you want to make a point with a legislative body. Michael Deckers.

On 2018-07-12 05:16, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
On 2018-07-11 23:58, Brian Inglis wrote:
Central European Time is the English localization of various EU and North African UTC+1 time zones and CET the abbreviation, all of which are referred to as time zones in common usage, and by some computer systems and applications. A time zone is a region on the Earth's surface, as any dictionary tells us; but "Central European Time" is not a region but (an English name for) a measure of time used in one of these time zones.
Strictly speaking what I called time zones are labels, as are the tzdb paths; it may also be used to refer to the areas in standard geographical longitudes; legalislatively, they are whatever the politicians tell us. Here, a time zone is a set of communities observing the same rules for timekeeping historically, or since 1970; the communities need not be contiguous, nor in the same country, in recent releases.
Exact wording helps (not only) when you want to make a point with a legislative body.
Communication for common understanding by others with no technical background is the goal. Defined exact wording would be desirable in legislation. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

On 07/11/2018 03:28 PM, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
I do not think that the names of time scale are considered to be EU business by anyone in the EU -- the EU follow the principle of subsidiarity which defers decisions with local scope to the locals.
We could water down it to a suggestion that the EU bring the naming problems to the attention of member countries and other interested parties. Surely there would be no objection to that. Also, I think it'd be helpful to suggest a solution to the problem. I'm thinking that the name Central European Union Time (CEUT) would be a good one if France, Germany and nearby countries adopt permanent UTC +02. New version of proposed comment attached.

On 13/07/2018 00:55, Paul Eggert wrote:
Also, I think it'd be helpful to suggest a solution to the problem. I'm thinking that the name Central European Union Time (CEUT) would be a good one if France, Germany and nearby countries adopt permanent UTC +02.
Wouldn't that break the TZ policy of not inventing new abbreviations? What's wrong with using "+02"? -- -=( Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk> || Web: www.mev.co.uk )=- -=( MEV Ltd. is a company registered in England & Wales. )=- -=( Registered number: 02862268. Registered address: )=- -=( 15 West Park Road, Bramhall, STOCKPORT, SK7 3JZ, UK. )=-

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:27:22 +0100 From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk> Message-ID: <c144ffc8-7e90-3b95-eb5b-482105c3602d@mev.co.uk> | Wouldn't that break the TZ policy of not inventing new abbreviations? I suspect Paul intended that the European Parliament (or the various European Parliaments - whichever is appropriate) do the abbreviation invention, not that TZ do it. Personally I'd be happy if they stick to CET, and just change its meaning from +01 to +02 (assuming this proposed change evr actually happens.) kre

On 07/13/2018 04:51 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
| Wouldn't that break the TZ policy of not inventing new abbreviations?
I suspect Paul intended that the European Parliament (or the various European Parliaments - whichever is appropriate) do the abbreviation invention, not that TZ do it.
Yes, that was the idea.
Personally I'd be happy if they stick to CET, and just change its meaning from +01 to +02 (assuming this proposed change evr actually happens.)
tzdb can just use "+02" and wait for the dust to settle in English (if it ever does). Other applications may not have that luxury (sure, they may be misguided, but still...). Either way, I expect more confusion if the EU does not provide guidance about the new time zone names. We may see a similar situation in the US. If California moves to permanent +07 (there's a question on the ballot about this before the voters in November), will the resulting time be called "PDT" or "MST" or something else? Similarly for Florida and EDT/AST/whatever.

Le 13/07/2018 à 01:55, Paul Eggert a écrit :
Also, I think it'd be helpful to suggest a solution to the problem. I'm thinking that the name Central European Union Time (CEUT) would be a good one if France, Germany and nearby countries adopt permanent UTC +02.
Except that it would seem quite likely that neighbouring non-EU countries will align themselves with any changes made... It also occurs to me that much of our discussion, and much of the recommendation, is assuming that many European countries would change to an offset that equates to their current summer time (i.e. permanent summertime by any other name), when it is equally possible that they would choose to stay year-round on their current winter time. -- John

On 07/13/2018 05:02 AM, John Wilcock wrote:
It also occurs to me that much of our discussion, and much of the recommendation, is assuming that many European countries would change to an offset that equates to their current summer time (i.e. permanent summertime by any other name), when it is equally possible that they would choose to stay year-round on their current winter time.
There is a staunch lobbying campaign to get people up earlier in the morning, led by groups such as convenience stores (which sell more if there's more evening light), tourist attractions and golf courses (since their customers tend to get up late), and construction firms (the original promoters of DST). In contrast, almost nobody lobbies for "noon" meaning the sun is overhead, as there's no money in that. So it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing here.

On 2018-07-13 08:37, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 07/13/2018 05:02 AM, John Wilcock wrote:
It also occurs to me that much of our discussion, and much of the recommendation, is assuming that many European countries would change to an offset that equates to their current summer time (i.e. permanent summertime by any other name), when it is equally possible that they would choose to stay year-round on their current winter time.
There is a staunch lobbying campaign to get people up earlier in the morning, led by groups such as convenience stores (which sell more if there's more evening light), tourist attractions and golf courses (since their customers tend to get up late), and construction firms (the original promoters of DST). In contrast, almost nobody lobbies for "noon" meaning the sun is overhead, as there's no money in that. So it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing here.
I read that the convenience store lobbyists said that the 2007 extension of DST was money well spent. DST made more sense at a time and in a culture where business and retail hours were shorter, and opening and closing times were more legislated, regulated, common, and consistent. Farmers and farm workers always work mainly when there's daylight available, but store hours are contractual or profit driven, and business hours likewise plus business and customer needs (e.g. markets around the world still trade mainly during local hours e.g. ~9-~4 US ET, UK GMT/BST, EU CET, JP JST, as volumes are higher, prices are lower, less volatile) so DST nowadays is irrelevant, it's the impact on legislation and regulation e.g. government and school hours, and coordination between related jurisdictions, that's important. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

I tried to submit the drafted comments, and discovered that there was a 3000-character limit. So I trimmed them a bit and attempted to submit the attached 2994-character comment instead. The https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/2018-summertime-arrangements website was confusing, though, and did not give me confirmation that I have successfully submitted a comment. I may have submitted duplicate comments. Oh well, duplicate paperwork is par for the EU.

Le 11/07/2018 à 00:05, Brian Inglis a écrit :
Most people are probably not that aware of European geography [...]
Taking the world as a whole, you are no doubt correct, but most of the people at the EU who will be reading Paul's submission will be perfectly aware of European geography!
I don't see the relevance of "Schengen area" - all current and potential Schengen area countries are either EU or EEA/EFTA members. The Schengen Area also includes non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican, which have not signed the Schengen agreement, but have no borders, so are de facto included.
While these three countries are indeed de facto within the Schengen area due to the lack of border *controls* — they do still have borders ;-) — it still seems (at least to me as a European) very odd to mention Schengen purely in order to include its *non*-signatories, especially as the next item in the list is in any case the all-inclusive "other countries not in the EU". -- John

On 2018-07-11 01:07, John Wilcock wrote:
Le 11/07/2018 à 00:05, Brian Inglis a écrit :
Most people are probably not that aware of European geography [...]
Taking the world as a whole, you are no doubt correct, but most of the people at the EU who will be reading Paul's submission will be perfectly aware of European geography!
I don't see the relevance of "Schengen area" - all current and potential Schengen area countries are either EU or EEA/EFTA members. The Schengen Area also includes non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican, which have not signed the Schengen agreement, but have no borders, so are de facto included.
While these three countries are indeed de facto within the Schengen area due to the lack of border *controls* — they do still have borders ;-) — it still seems (at least to me as a European) very odd to mention Schengen purely in order to include its *non*-signatories, especially as the next item in the list is in any case the all-inclusive "other countries not in the EU".
By the time the EU gets around to doing anything about this, if they do, any of those signatories may have changed, depending on Brexit, other departures, and other countries deciding Schengen is or is not such a great idea nowadays e.g. Hungary, Poland, France de facto (unless they reopened their borders). As a long time non-resident EU citizen (this year) I try to avoid cultural baggage on any sides and consider the long term. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

On 2018-07-11 01:07, John Wilcock wrote:
Le 11/07/2018 à 00:05, Brian Inglis a écrit :
Most people are probably not that aware of European geography [...]
Taking the world as a whole, you are no doubt correct, but most of the people at the EU who will be reading Paul's submission will be perfectly aware of European geography!
I would prefer to not make the mistake of that assumption regarding the politicians who will be discussing and voting on this measure, as their focus tends to be local and short term, as are many who elect them. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Le 11/07/2018 à 19:56, Brian Inglis a écrit :
Taking the world as a whole, you are no doubt correct, but most of the people at the EU who will be reading Paul's submission will be perfectly aware of European geography! I would prefer to not make the mistake of that assumption regarding the politicians who will be discussing and voting on this measure, as their focus tends to be local and short term, as are many who elect them.
Seriously? This side discussion started because of a suggestion that some people might not find it odd to call a time zone for France "Eastern European time". I don't have particularly high expectations of politicians' knowledge either, as a general rule, but I do think it is fair to say that any EU politicians and bureaucrats involved will be aware that France is not in the eastern portion of Europe by any definition!!! But we are getting totally off topic here - no more from me on this aspect! -- John

On 9 Jul 2018, at 08:25, John Wilcock <john@tradoc.fr> wrote:
I'm surprised a consultation by the EU hasn't provoked more comment here. Anyway...
In the UK it's probably because we're sick of all the politicians :) I have two possibly interesting observations. The first is that DST makes more difference in places like the North of England where the choice is school children going to school in the dark or not: this is usually what scuppers any change in the UK. The second is that there are any number of heating/lighting/whatever timers now that _know_ when DST begins and ends saving us from the tyranny of having to try to remember how to change the time twice a year. jch

Paul Eggert wrote in <e60fef5f-4752-c62e-f063-23f15efe948a@cs.ucla.edu>: |John Wilcock wrote: |> https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/2018-summertime-arrangements_en | |Thanks for the heads-up. A draft comment to the EU is attached. --End of <e60fef5f-4752-c62e-f063-23f15efe948a@cs.ucla.edu> An Austrian news magazine reports that 80 percent of all participants voted for dropping the time switch, yet many voted for always keeping summer time. I have also participated, and it must be said that these where leading questions in an alerting way. I had the impression that this was wanted, maybe even for automated prefiltering, .. but then again, isn't that also unthinkable. I have been outvoted by many. Commented i had that children should not go to school in the dark, that i have seen a real (non overexposed through human light pollution) night sky only two times in my whole life, and the rest i have forgotten. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
participants (9)
-
Brian Inglis
-
Clive D.W. Feather
-
Ian Abbott
-
John Haxby
-
John Wilcock
-
Michael H Deckers
-
Paul Eggert
-
Robert Elz
-
Steffen Nurpmeso