Subject: [Tzdist] Charter issues

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:25:11 +0200

Since Eliot recently pointed to the charter to restrict tzdist
discussion, I had a look at this charter again.

So:

"The tzdist working group will define a time zone data distribution
protocol that allows for efficient, timely updates of time zone data to
be delivered to clients."

Then
"A time zone is a region"
Now, I see no definition for region in the charter. Does anyone else?

" that has a uniform local time for legal,
commercial, and social purposes"
without knowing what "region" means one cannot check whether a zone
fulfills this requirement.

"Time zone data represents the history, current, and future local
time rules for these regions"
I am not a native English speaker, but I thought history is a noun
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history
supports this.

current and future could be adjectives here.

What are "future local time rules"? I wonder how time zone data can
represent some future entities.

"Time zone changes are often delivered as operating system updates"
Before there was text about time zone data, now here is "time zone
changes". That is not data changes alone. Why this broader term here?

Why is there duplication?

A)
The tzdist working group will define a time zone data distribution
protocol that allows for efficient, timely updates of time zone data to
be delivered to clients. The protocol must scale to vast numbers of
clients, such as the potential "internet of things" devices, as well as
to today's desktop computers and servers.

a little bit further down

B) This working group will:
Define a time zone data distribution protocol that allows for
efficient, timely updates of time zone data to be delivered to clients.
This protocol must scale to vast numbers of clients, such as the
potential "internet of things" devices, as well as to today's desktop
computers and servers.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Jonathan Leffler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:45:59 -0700

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [...]

I think it would be more grammatically correct to use 'historical' instead
of 'history', but the meaning is clear even though it is incorrect.

> represent some future entities.

Future rules are used all the time; until a change occurs, you predict when
it will occur, using rules which predict what will happen.  Typically, the
rules are from some date in the past until an indeterminate date in the
future.  The rules describing when the time zones in the USA and Europe
will switch from daylight saving to standard time in October or November
2014 are rules about the future, and will remain so until the time zone
offset is switched.

-- 
Jonathan Leffler <[email-masked]>  #include <disclaimer.h>
Guardian of DBD::Informix - v2013.0521 - http://dbi.perl.org
"Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never cease to be
amused."

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:11:44 +0200

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Jonathan Leffler
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think it would be more grammatically correct
if it is only "more grammatically correct" it means it is a little bit
correct already. But then I wonder what "history" is meant.

>  to use 'historical' instead
Is it incorrect? Or is it only a little bit grammatically incorrect?

> Future rules are used all the time;
That is interesting. Since they are future, they don't exist yet. But
at the same time, they are used "all the time". That also would
include the time, where they don't exist yet.

> until a change occurs, you predict when
> it will occur,
Prognosticators do so.

> using rules which predict what will happen.  Typically, the
> future.  The rules describing when the time zones in the USA and Europe will
> switch from daylight saving to standard time in October or November 2014 are
> rules about the future,
These rules exist and are not future rules.

> and will remain so until the time zone offset is
> switched.
And likely beyond.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:29:16 +0200

Tobias,

None of the below proposes any changes to anyone's activity in this
group.  Therefore, please cease discussion of the charter, which has
already been approved.

Eliot
(as co-chair)

---

From: Lester Caine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:21:28 +0100

> include the time, where they don't exist yet.

We know that some rules exist that are only predictions of future dates,
and for some countries those dates may not finally be decided until some
astronomical event triggers the rule, such as Ramadan. It is currently a
prediction of the future, but once the actual date is reached there may
well need to be a rapid update to the actual data at short notice. Again
it would be nice if the tzdist mechanism perhaps flagged that using come
data may not be accurate? All DST data is really just predicted as
changes of government may well trigger changes to those rules?

-- 
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

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:04:38 +0200

> group.  Therefore, please cease discussion of the charter, which has
Interesting you only address me, not Jonathan, nor Lester. Can you
transparently explain why some people may go on with charter
discussion and I not?

> (as co-chair)

Tobias
as WG group member

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Jonathan Leffler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:14:01 -0700

Tobias,

You raised questions about the WG Charter.  I attempted to answer a couple
of your questions.  Lester attempted to answer your response to my answer.
I did not seek a change to the status quo (although I'd prefer a spelling
change, the material quoted is clear enough not to mislead anyone who is
not trying to be misled); I suspect Lester was the same, though I've not
consulted with him to verify that.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Tzdist mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist
>

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:25:34 +0100

Note: this is a sidetrack on English grammar, not a discussion about the
charter.

> correct already. But then I wonder what "history" is meant.

I would say that the sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be either:

"Time zone data represents the historical, current, and future local
time rules for these regions"

or:

"Time zone data represents the history of and the current and future local
time rules for these regions"

I suspect the former was intended.

> Is it incorrect? Or is it only a little bit grammatically incorrect?

It is incorrect, but nevertheless is clear.

Just like my wife is incorrect when she uses "good" instead of "well" where
an adverb is required, but I have no difficulty in understanding what she
wants.

> That is interesting. Since they are future, they don't exist yet.

Nonsense. They are rules about the future.

There is a distinction to be drawn between past versions of the rules that
apply to the future and future rules that apply to the past. Or any of the
other 7 combinations of past, present, and future.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: [email-masked]     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:35:40 +0200

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jonathan Leffler
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> change, the material quoted is clear enough not to mislead anyone who is not
> trying to be misled);
This contradicts " I attempted to answer ". If it is clear enough no
attempt would be needed.

Unfortunately I can per verdict by Eliot not go on with the discussion
about the issues of the charter, and only make comments about the
discussion.

Some more comment on Eliot's note:

--------
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> group.
But a change of the charter, influences activities in that group.

> Therefore, please cease discussion of the charter, which has
> already been approved.
Is there an RFC that does not allow to discuss charter issues after
adoption? If so, would you make that transparent? Or do you just try
to use your position as chair to intimidate a WG group member?

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Lester Caine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:31:35 +0100

On 26/08/14 16:14, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> You raised questions about the WG Charter.  I attempted to answer a
> couple of your questions.  Lester attempted to answer your response to
> my answer.  I did not seek a change to the status quo (although I'd
> prefer a spelling change, the material quoted is clear enough not to
> mislead anyone who is not trying to be misled); I suspect Lester was the
> same, though I've not consulted with him to verify that.

While English is my only language, I am stretched at times to understand
some peoples complaints at what is perhaps not totally grammatically
correct use. Many English speaking countries have different
interpretations of those rules, so we just live with what is created and
only correct what is factually incorrect. We have to live with a lot
more incorrect English due to spelling differences - I STILL have
problems with color when it should be colour ... and wanting to switch
from timezone is just another such discrepancy I will have to live with.

The charter is not going to be the final document, and I hope that the
revisions to the current drafts will correct some of the lax definitions
that are now being refined in the tracker.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:24:20 -0400

The chairs have (correctly, I think) declare nitpicking the charter
out of scope at this point, and I don't want to revive that thread.
But Tobias asked a direct question in his first post, and I think the
question deserves an answer.  Please don't continue discussion of the
answer; I put it here as a matter of possible interest).

> potential "internet of things" devices, as well as to today's desktop

During charter review, Dave Crocker pointed out that we have often
tried to make the first paragraph of the charter stand alone as a
quick summary, so that (1) it could be distributed separately as a
sort of "abstract" and (2) someone reading it could very quickly
determine whether this working group is of interest to her.  In
response to that comment, I copied the first work item text, and
tweaked it to make it a suitable first paragraph.  You can see how
that went into version -00-07, here:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-tzdist%2Fwithmilestones-00-06.txt&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-tzdist%2Fwithmilestones-00-07.txt

Yes, it seemed silly to me, as well, but it was easy to do and
possibly useful.  In retrospect, I agree that it looks funny, and the
IESG will probably reconsider this custom (that not all charters
follow anyway).

Barry