On 2026-07-28 03:21 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2026-07-28 11:19, Brooks Harris wrote:
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?
In any hypothetical conversions with Senate staff I am not planning to
advocate whether to go to permanent standard time, or move one time
zone east (a.k.a. "permanent daylight saving"), or doing nothing -
other than perhaps the obvious point that doing nothing is simplest
technically. I don't want these larger issues to drown out the
importance of a year's notice of any timekeeping changes. As I
understand it we're united on needing a good long notice, even if we
may disagree on which timekeeping change, if any, is advisable; and I
want to focus on where there is pretty much universal technical
agreement.
I wasn't advocating for permanent standard time. I was only asking, "is
that technically easier then the Sunshine Protective Act."?
I think in the short or medium term I'd advocate for doing nothing until
society gets round to a better consensus. Of course most of humanity
doesn't observe DST, so with respect to international coordination
standard time is better. But that's not the way it is.
I'm happy to support your start time focus.
