Why 2021b needed to be issued
Since 2013 I've been patching tzdb by replacing Zones with Links when Links suffice according to the guidelines. These patches have not affected timestamps after 1970. I've been doing this gradually. The changes have worked without significant incident, partly because end users generally don't care about pre-1970 timestamps, and partly because the few users who do care (astrologers, mostly) know or should know that the pre-1970 Zone data entries are often wrong and even when right are typically grossly inadequate for realistic use outside the named location - this is partly why any focus on pre-1970 is out of scope for tzdb. Preparing all these patches has been a big enough job that I've been doing it gradually since I have limited time. This process was discussed on the list before it began, and although there was some objection, a consensus to move towards these goals was reached at the time. Most of this job was done before 2021a came out. The main difference in this round of patches, is that I had aimed to complete the job, in response to a user query raising equity concerns in 2021a. It is clear that the 2021a setup was not sustainable in the long term, if equity is a goal. Completing the job generated larger patches than usual, and the patches' size triggered concern that they held too many changes all at once. Also, the patches' effects on pre-1970 timestamps in (for example) Norway and Sweden have triggered concerns, much more so than similar changes made (for example) to Angola and Congo in tzdb 2014g. My own view is that we've done this before, many times, it hasn't been a problem in practice, and it's way past time to address the equity concerns as they have a good chance to really bite this project and its repackagers in the future. It's a bad look for us that so much concern about Norway and Sweden has appeared on this mailing list, even though hardly anybody seems to have cared about Angola and Congo. It'll be an even worse look if we ignore this issue weeks, months or even years after it's been made clear to us. I wrote, tested and published several concrete suggestions addressing the fairness problem. In the months since May when the fairness problem was discovered and objections to my proposed fixes were raised, no other concrete fix addressing both of these concerns has been implemented or tested, and all other suggestions made so far would have required significant work, if they would have worked at all, or would have caused more data churn than what I proposed. I realize that there are valid concerns about installing too many of these patches at once, so 2021b affects only nine Zones instead of the thirty-odd Zones in my May proposal. The idea is to do further patch sets in not-too-distant-future releases, so that the job can finally be finished. I also recognize that there are other forms of equity and fairness that should be considered, perhaps along with alternative technical solutions to the problems these patches address. With all this in mind, issuing 2021b now is a significant step toward equity in tzdb. It will let us say that we are moving toward a fair process, and will give us the opportunity and motivation to improve on that process and to address and balance the various other concerns that have recently appeared on the mailing list.
"On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 06:23, Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
The main difference in this round of patches, is that I had aimed to complete the job, in response to a user query raising equity concerns in 2021a. It is clear that the 2021a setup was not sustainable in the long term, if equity is a goal.
Equity is not a formal goal of the project. It is not documented or agreed in the RFC nor in the theory file. Your opinion of what is equitable does not align with mine.
Completing the job generated larger patches than usual, and the patches' size triggered concern that they held too many changes all at once.
Having read hundreds of emails over the past few months, I don't think *anyone* expressed the concern of patch size or too many changes.
Also, the patches' effects on pre-1970 timestamps in (for example) Norway and Sweden have triggered concerns, much more so than similar changes made (for example) to Angola and Congo in tzdb 2014g.
It may not be pleasant to accept, but I would strongly argue that places like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are much more significant to the world economy than Angola and Congo. You simply cannot judge the impact based on what has happened before. In addition, the pre-1970 data being removed now is much better researched than much of what has previously been removed.
I also recognize that there are other forms of equity and fairness that should be considered, perhaps along with alternative technical solutions to the problems these patches address.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. In summary, I am livid with the high-handed approach you have taken wrt the release of 2021b. Despite near unanimity of the mailing list requesting you to release 2021a+MinimalChanges, you progressed 9 out of the 30 link merges based on a rationale that you acknowledge is not universally accepted. I believe your actions are against the spirit of the RFC, if not the letter (as decided by the IESG), as you "SHOULD take into account views expressed on the mailing list". I will now take a break from this matter for a long weekend, as the list has requested. Later next week I will try to start a positive discussion as to what the next steps can be. Stephen
On 9/25/21 9:40 AM, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
Equity is not a formal goal of the project.
I have assumed that it was understood that the guidelines were meant to be applied fairly. If that's not clear, then we should add something about fairness to the guidelines. Eliot has also suggested something along these lines. After the dust settles I think it'd be good idea to move forward on this.
Having read hundreds of emails over the past few months, I don't think *anyone* expressed the concern of patch size or too many changes.
With so many emails, it's easy to miss all the concerns expressed. (I'm sure I missed some too.) In my reads last week, I saw significant concern over the number of changes to pre-1970 timestamps. I was particularly struck by Jon's email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030684.html> where he wrote of my May proposal "I *would* say it's experimental, in that we don't genuinely know the impact of a change of *this* scale. I would suggest that we've done 'this sort of thing' on a smaller scale." This prompted me to scale back the Zone-to-Link changes to be roughly of a size that we've successfully done several times before, and that is why I installed this smaller changeset in 2021b.
I would strongly argue that places like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are much more significant to the world economy than Angola and Congo.
That doesn't mean these countries should get preferential treatment in tzdb. The tzdb guidelines are (and should be) about timekeeping, not about whether a region is rich enough to deserve special status, or is entitled to a special status for some other nontechnical reason.
Later next week I will try to start a positive discussion as to what the next steps can be.
I look forward to that discussion. In particular, I'd like to explore the idea of CLDR taking on some of the heavy lifting here. That is, it might be a good idea to delegate more-political issues to CLDR, just as we've already effectively delegated internationalization. Come to think of it, I suppose I already attempted to start this process in my reply yesterday to Mark Davis, archived here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030769.html
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:40 AM Stephen Colebourne via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
I believe your actions are against the spirit of the RFC, if not the letter (as decided by the IESG), as you "SHOULD take into account views expressed on the mailing list".
The IESG hasn't decided anything. You are referring, I believe, to my earlier post, which delivered my evaluation. The IESG as a whole has not (yet) been asked this question. I won't repeat my evaluation here, except to say that my view is contrary to what you've said above. -MSK, ART Area Director
participants (3)
-
Murray S. Kucherawy -
Paul Eggert -
Stephen Colebourne