I like the idea, and Canada will also typically follow the USA on this
if its implemented.
Canada, of course, is familiar with 30 min offsets, as Newfoundland
already has one, and its not disruptive.
Maybe if we all move forward 30 minutes, Newfoundland time will now be
the more 'normal' one.
On 2026-02-20 15:07, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
On 2026-02-20 02:11 PM, Doug Ewell via tz wrote:
Nice to see a time zone post on this list. ;)
I actually don’t think this is a bad idea. It satisfies the desire of most
Americans to stop changing the clocks, and it strikes a balance between people
who want more evening daylight in winter and those like me who don't want
absurdly late sunrises in winter, which is the source of greatest conflict in
the US. It might be the only proposal that has a chance of success.
The half-hour offsets would be a bit of a mental adjustment, but we’d adapt;
something like 20 percent of the world’s population seems to get along with
them today.
The proposed 90-day window, of course, is a horrible idea. Steube and others
who support that part of the bill have absolutely no idea of the chaos this
would cause. The right approach would be to spring forward as usual two weeks
from now, then fall back on November 1 as planned, and then spring forward half
an hour on March 14, 2027 and leave it there.
--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
I think this would be very disruptive. Only Lord Howe Island has done
anything like that for decades.
"Permanent DST" is also problematic.
As Paul Eggert pointed out on the list:
Re: [tz] Tzdb and the Sunshine Protection Act, 2023-03-02
------------------------
On 3/2/23 14:22, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
How will tzdb manage this?
Traditionally we've treated "permanent daylight saving" as standard
time, and I'd rather continue this tradition than make an exception
for the US. That is, tm_isdst would be 0. (Most people don't care
about the tm_isdst flag, but POSIX and C standard nerds do.)
Whether the adjusted time in (say) New York would be abbreviated "EST"
or "AST" or "EDT" is up to common practice. We could use the
abbreviation "-04" until common practice settles down. If common
practice becomes "ET" we couldn't use that, unfortunately, as POSIX
requires at least three characters. At some point "EST" might become
the best of the alternatives.
My biggest worry is the set of backward compatibility zones EST5EDT,
CST6CDT, MST7MDT, PST8PDT as their continued use would lead to so much
confusion that they'd be more trouble than they're worth. Presumably
we would retire them by moving them to "backzone". "EST" and "MST"
might need to retire as well. (Luckily, there is no "CST" or "PST".)
Similar issues will come up if EU regions go to "permanent daylight
saving", as they have threatened to do for years.
Whatever we do in this area, it will be a mess.
------------------------
A "mess" doesn't sound so good.
"Permanent Standard Time" would be the least technically disruptive,
most natural, and consistent with the vast majority of time zones
which do not observe DST. However this also upsets the current status
quo practices. Most people don't like DST, but they often don't like a
change in tradition either.
"Permanent DST" was tried in 1976 and reversed in eight months. I'm
guessing any change would meet a similar fate.
-Brooks
