Crimea to switch to Moscow Time as of March 30, 2014
According to the news, Republic of Crimea (Simferopol, Sevastopol, Kerch, Yalta, Yevpatoriya) will change its clock 2 hours forward (to the Moscow time) on March 30, 2014. Crimea to switch to Moscow Time as of March 30 http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_17/Crimea-to-switch-to-Moscow-Time-as- of-March-30-8334/ or http://www.worldtimezone.com/dst_news/dst_news_crimea01.html Alexander Krivenyshev, http://www.worldtimezone.com
Alexander Krivenyshev wrote:
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_17/Crimea-to-switch-to-Moscow-Time-as- of-March-30-8334/
Thanks for the heads-up. That notice says that they'll switch to Moscow Time at 2pm, which means they'd advance their clocks by an hour once at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time) and once again at 14:00 local time. Do you think they'll really do that, or do you think that the notice or translation is incorrect and Crimea will simply advance the clocks by two hours at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time)?
Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu> writes:
Alexander Krivenyshev wrote:
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_17/Crimea-to-switch-to-Moscow-
Time-as-
of-March-30-8334/
Thanks for the heads-up. That notice says that they'll switch to Moscow Time at 2pm, which means they'd advance their clocks by an hour once at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time) and once again at 14:00 local time. Do you think they'll really do that, or do you think that the notice or translation is incorrect and Crimea will simply advance the clocks by two hours at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time)?
I think that translation was incorrect, as most of other news (in russian) http://ria.ru/world/20140317/999818828.html http://vz.ru/news/2014/3/17/677464.html says time change at 2:00 (2am) on March 30, 2014: "To establish across the Republic of Crimea the time standard in accordance with the third time zone with the time change at 2:00 on March 30, 2014, by moving the clock two hours forward" Alexander Krivenyshev, http://www.worldtimezone.com
On Monday, March 17 2014, "Paul Eggert" wrote to "Alexander Krivenyshev, tz@iana.org" saying:
Alexander Krivenyshev wrote:
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_17/Crimea-to-switch-to-Moscow-Time-as- of-March-30-8334/
Thanks for the heads-up. That notice says that they'll switch to Moscow Time at 2pm, which means they'd advance their clocks by an hour once at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time) and once again at 14:00 local time. Do you think they'll really do that, or do you think that the notice or translation is incorrect and Crimea will simply advance the clocks by two hours at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time)?
The other question is whether the area that's moving to Moscow time is same as the existing Europe/Simferopol zone? The comment in the source says "central Crimea" moved to Moscow time in 1994-1997, which implies that some parts of Crimea didn't. If they're not the same, does anyone know what the largest city is in the area that was on Ukraine time in 1994-1997, but is moving to Moscow time now? The other, politically fraught, issue for the tzdb is going to be how to mark Europe/Simferopol and any other new Crimean timezones in zone.tab, i.e. whether they should keep being categorized as UA or changed to RU. My suggestion would be to leave them as UA until such time as Crimea's accession to Russia is internationally recognized, or the situation otherwise changes. -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:16 PM, <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
... The other, politically fraught, issue for the tzdb is going to be how to mark Europe/Simferopol and any other new Crimean timezones in zone.tab, i.e. whether they should keep being categorized as UA or changed to RU. My suggestion would be to leave them as UA until such time as Crimea's accession to Russia is internationally recognized, or the situation otherwise changes.
Though it pains me to say so, I don’t agree. We’ve had a whole lot of debate on this list about whether TZ entries should have the blessing of some “authority”. The current approach, I believe, is that it is intended to reflect the reality on the ground, and official blessing is not directly relevent. That’s why there are (or were, or were planned to be) entries for places like Transnistria or Taiwan. paul
On Monday, March 17 2014, "Paul_Koning@Dell.com" wrote to "<lennox@cs.columbia.edu>, <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, <tz@iana.org>" saying:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:16 PM, <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
... The other, politically fraught, issue for the tzdb is going to be how to mark Europe/Simferopol and any other new Crimean timezones in zone.tab, i.e. whether they should keep being categorized as UA or changed to RU. My suggestion would be to leave them as UA until such time as Crimea's accession to Russia is internationally recognized, or the situation otherwise changes.
Though it pains me to say so, I don’t agree. We’ve had a whole lot of debate on this list about whether TZ entries should have the blessing of some “authority”. The current approach, I believe, is that it is intended to reflect the reality on the ground, and official blessing is not directly relevent. That’s why there are (or were, or were planned to be) entries for places like Transnistria or Taiwan.
I absolutely agree that the entries for Europe/Simferopol should reflect what people are actually doing to their clocks in Simferopol, regardless of what the government in Kiev may think *should* be happening there. The question I have is how it should be described in zone.tab. This is more fraught -- though, on reflection, I think I've changed my mind from my initial position. The question is, how would a Crimean user of tzselect expect to find the entry for their local timezone? And the answer probably is, they would expect to find it by selecting "Russia", rather than "Ukraine". -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu
I know it doesn't help for the moment, but perhaps the list should be more obviously NOT authoritative by taking a pluralist view. It could take an exclusive pluralist view and have a country called "disputed". Or it could take an inclusive pluralist view where disputed zones appear in all the places people would look. Julian Cable -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of lennox@cs.columbia.edu Sent: 17 March 2014 17:04 To: Paul_Koning@Dell.com Cc: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Crimea to switch to Moscow Time as of March 30, 2014 On Monday, March 17 2014, "Paul_Koning@Dell.com" wrote to "<lennox@cs.columbia.edu>, <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, <tz@iana.org>" saying:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:16 PM, <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> <lennox@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
... The other, politically fraught, issue for the tzdb is going to be how to mark Europe/Simferopol and any other new Crimean timezones in zone.tab, i.e. whether they should keep being categorized as UA or changed to RU. My suggestion would be to leave them as UA until such time as Crimea's accession to Russia is internationally recognized, or the situation otherwise changes.
Though it pains me to say so, I don’t agree. We’ve had a whole lot of debate on this list about whether TZ entries should have the blessing of some “authority”. The current approach, I believe, is that it is intended to reflect the reality on the ground, and official blessing is not directly relevent. That’s why there are (or were, or were planned to be) entries for places like Transnistria or Taiwan.
I absolutely agree that the entries for Europe/Simferopol should reflect what people are actually doing to their clocks in Simferopol, regardless of what the government in Kiev may think *should* be happening there. The question I have is how it should be described in zone.tab. This is more fraught -- though, on reflection, I think I've changed my mind from my initial position. The question is, how would a Crimean user of tzselect expect to find the entry for their local timezone? And the answer probably is, they would expect to find it by selecting "Russia", rather than "Ukraine". -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Julian Cable <julian.cable@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
I know it doesn't help for the moment, but perhaps the list should be more obviously NOT authoritative by taking a pluralist view.
It could take an exclusive pluralist view and have a country called "disputed”.
I’d rather not do that. Disputed by whom? You’d get into exactly the same debate as to which authorities are able to make something “disputed”. paul
I don't think an authority is needed to approve the existence of a dispute. I don't think the list would be indicating any credibility of a dispute by noting its existence. For example one could include a time zone in any country where Wikipedia stated that country claimed the territory. That would not imply that Wikipedia, the pages editors or the government of the country was right, merely that there was a claim. Similarly one could include countries which had Wikipedia entries, without asserting that the country exists. Once a time zone can appear in more than one country's drop down, it doesn't matter whether the country exists or whether disputes are credible. It only matters that someone will find the zone they are looking for in the place they are looking for it. -----Original Message----- From: Paul_Koning@Dell.com [mailto:Paul_Koning@Dell.com] Sent: 17 March 2014 18:19 To: Julian Cable Cc: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Crimea to switch to Moscow Time as of March 30, 2014 On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Julian Cable <julian.cable@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
I know it doesn't help for the moment, but perhaps the list should be more obviously NOT authoritative by taking a pluralist view.
It could take an exclusive pluralist view and have a country called "disputed".
I'd rather not do that. Disputed by whom? You'd get into exactly the same debate as to which authorities are able to make something "disputed". paul ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
It could take an exclusive pluralist view and have a country called "disputed".
This resonates with me, but I think the instant situation is a bit different. One imagines that those people in Crimea who agree with the Russian referendum will switch their time to Russian time, and those who do not will not. This suggest we should have not Europe/Simferopol but Ukraine/Simferopol and Russia/Simferopol. This also seems like a case where it will be hard to predict exactly what will happen, and so it may be inadvisable for the tz database to take a position too early. --jhawk@mit.edu John Hawkinson
That also sounds rational. -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of John Hawkinson Sent: 17 March 2014 18:24 To: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Crimea to switch to Moscow Time as of March 30, 2014
It could take an exclusive pluralist view and have a country called "disputed".
This resonates with me, but I think the instant situation is a bit different. One imagines that those people in Crimea who agree with the Russian referendum will switch their time to Russian time, and those who do not will not. This suggest we should have not Europe/Simferopol but Ukraine/Simferopol and Russia/Simferopol. This also seems like a case where it will be hard to predict exactly what will happen, and so it may be inadvisable for the tz database to take a position too early. --jhawk@mit.edu John Hawkinson ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
On 03/17/2014 11:41 AM, Julian Cable wrote:
This suggest we should have not Europe/Simferopol but Ukraine/Simferopol and Russia/Simferopol.
We are not a political body and do not have the resources to deal with political disputes. That's why the tz database prefers more-neutral names like 'Europe/Simferopol', which (thank goodness) is the name the tz database is already using and which will be unaffected by the forseeable political changes in Crimea. At this point we should be thanking our lucky stars that the name is *not* Ukraine/Simferopol (or USSR/Simferopol or Russia/Simferopol or ...). Let's not mess with success. As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:51:40 -0700, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> said:
As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
No, that just pushes the work onto the downstream distributors. -GAWollman
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:51:40 -0700, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> said:
As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
No, that just pushes the work onto the downstream distributors.
Which work? If it's the work of making a time zone selection UI function, I'd gladly push that work onto Somebody Else, so that people upset with the UI's offerings, for reasons other than the absence of a time zone setting for wherever they live, can blame Somebody Else rather than us.
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:37:00 -0700, Guy Harris <guy@alum.mit.edu> said:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:51:40 -0700, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> said:
As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
No, that just pushes the work onto the downstream distributors.
Which work?
The work of figuring out which "country" uses the various timezones. -GAWollman
It would actually be better to have no geopolitical information in the database. Geonames.org and statoids.com do that. Geonames links geonameids directly to 'Olson' time zone names. It would be great to have polygons as a normative part of the data but organising hierarchies are available elsewhere. Julian
On 17 Mar 2014, at 21:44, "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:37:00 -0700, Guy Harris <guy@alum.mit.edu> said:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
<<On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:51:40 -0700, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> said:
As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
No, that just pushes the work onto the downstream distributors.
Which work?
The work of figuring out which "country" uses the various timezones.
-GAWollman
----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Paul Eggert wrote:
This suggest we should have not Europe/Simferopol but Ukraine/Simferopol and Russia/Simferopol.
We are not a political body and do not have the resources to deal with political disputes. That's why the tz database prefers more-neutral names like 'Europe/Simferopol', which (thank goodness) is the name the tz database is already using and which will be unaffected by the forseeable political changes in Crimea. At this point we should be thanking our lucky stars that the name is *not* Ukraine/Simferopol (or USSR/Simferopol or Russia/Simferopol or ...). Let's not mess with success.
As for whether zone.tab should say UA or RU for Simferopol, we don't have the resources to arbitrate disputes like that either. If this turns into a real dispute that starts taking up our resources, then we'll need to change zone.tab's format so that it is less of a political flashpoint. This will entail some technical conversion hassles, but in the long run that'll less work for us and for our users than the neverending political hassles.
The only hole I see currently is identifying the area that is covered by this proposed change? Until such time as there is a stable agreement in the area then 'what is happening on the ground' is going to be variable? We can identify an 'additional' timezone although in reality this is simply moving an area of land from one existing time zone to another? But just which land is affected is not something that can be totally agreed today? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:50 PM, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
Though it pains me to say so, I don't agree. We've had a whole lot of debate on this list about whether TZ entries should have the blessing of some "authority". The current approach, I believe, is that it is intended to reflect the reality on the ground, and official blessing is not directly relevent. That's why there are (or were, or were planned to be) entries for places like Transnistria or Taiwan.
And those decisions will never please everyone. (insert common "Palestine is not Israel" past threads) There are continuing issues when zones even match. I don't think people recognize the impact pluralist approaches have on the technical ones, no matter how much the maintainers attempt to accommodate. Just my $0.02. -- bjs
I would not worry about that. If it comes from Google translation: I have observed that it tends to say things like '2 pm' when the Russian (or Ukrainian) original simply said '2 o'clock'. On 17.03.14 15:33, Paul Eggert wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up. That notice says that they'll switch to Moscow Time at 2pm, which means they'd advance their clocks by an hour once at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time) and once again at 14:00 local time. Do you think they'll really do that, or do you think that the notice or translation is incorrect and Crimea will simply advance the clocks by two hours at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time)?
On Monday, March 17 2014, "Alois Treindl" wrote to "tz@iana.org" saying:
On 17.03.14 15:33, Paul Eggert wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up. That notice says that they'll switch to Moscow Time at 2pm, which means they'd advance their clocks by an hour once at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time) and once again at 14:00 local time. Do you think they'll really do that, or do you think that the notice or translation is incorrect and Crimea will simply advance the clocks by two hours at 01:00 UTC (03:00 local time)?
I would not worry about that. If it comes from Google translation: I have observed that it tends to say things like '2 pm' when the Russian (or Ukrainian) original simply said '2 o'clock'.
2 am, i.e. an hour earlier than (the rest of) Ukraine goes onto Summer Time, would make a lot more sense. Does anyone have a link to the Crimean government's (presumably) Russian language original, so we can confirm this? Also, I note on Wikipedia that at least under Ukraine, Sevastopol was a special administrative district, separate from the rest of Crimea. Do we have any confirmation that it'll be changing its clocks to Moscow time at the same time as the rest of Crimea? -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu
On 03/17/2014 11:56 AM, lennox@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the Crimean government's (presumably) Russian language original, so we can confirm this? Today's official announcement in Russian does not specify a transition time. I suspect that the Supreme Council of Crimea didn't think of specifying one. If so, almost surely they'll add two hours at one point early March 30, rather than adding one hour at two different times. Whether the transition occurs at 02:00 or 03:00 or some other local time is probably not high on their list of things to worry about, but I'd guess 03:00 since that's when they'd switch anyway.
participants (12)
-
Alexander Krivenyshev -
Alexander Krivenyshev -
Alois Treindl -
Bryan J Smith -
Garrett Wollman -
Guy Harris -
John Hawkinson -
Julian Cable -
lennox＠cs.columbia.edu -
Lester Caine -
Paul Eggert -
Paul_Koning＠Dell.com