On 2026-07-28 01:12 PM, Paul Eggert via tz wrote:
On 2026-07-28 08:16, James Bellaire wrote:
I reached my senator (who happens to sit on the committee in
question) via a form on his senate website.
Thanks. I contacted the offices of the committee's chair and of its
ranking member, and am trying to schedule a meeting with committee
staff. It would help if others chimed in about the need for a year's
notice for timekeeping changes, particularly if one of your senators
is on the committee; see
<https://www.commerce.senate.gov/about/members/> for the member list.
I put August 7 in the speculative patch because I guessed that was the
earliest date the bill could become law as-is. It's sheer speculation,
of course.
As the Senate is scheduled to be on recess from August 8 through
September 13, according to
<https://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2026_calendar.pdf>,
it's likely that if the bill doesn't become law in the next couple of
weeks, then it won't become law until mid-September at the earliest.
And then we'd have at most six weeks' notice, which would mean even
more disruption in early November.
A years notice of start time is important. I think a more important
topic is the extreme technical complications imposed by the bill, and
the committee should be aware of this difficulty. It risks significant
disruptions.
Another subject that worries me is that the bill actually changes the
definition of time as prescribed by laws since 1918 and 1968. Doesn't
this risk confusion and legal disputes about the meaning of all timestamps?
I think the better approach is permanent standard time. If that came
about it's a very simple technical matter of just stopping DST and
everything flows fairly naturally from there. The Committee should also
be aware how that option would greatly simplify technical issues. Am I
right about that?
My Senator is on the Committee. I've tried contacting him, but got a
"Thank you" no-reply auto-response. Any suggestions how to reach anybody?
