Calendar-Reform Poll Results

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)

One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)

One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Sepp Rothwangl
Hi Michael,
I would not be so pessimistic!

When I showed people the result of my investigation on anno domini and how absurd this calendar is, almost all said: I want an alternative!
Regards

Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402
[hidden email]
www.calendersign.com
facebook.com/sepp.rothwangl

Am 05.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:

It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
May be of interest too:
The Tropical Year and Solar Calendar

Sepp


Am 05.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:

It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Christoph Päper-2
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Walter J Ziobro

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar
I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier

Different strokes for different folks

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@...>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

Sure, but in my briefly-worded versions, I just said a little about the justifications for the proposals, which is something that people would surely hear anyway if there were serious public advocacy going on.

But the problem was that people weren't interested enough to participate.

My poll on 2 map projections now has over 400 votes. My poll on 8 map projections has, it seems to me, about 70 votes, last time I checked. My 2016 presidential candidates poll with 23 candidates of 19 parties has nearly 100 votes.

And one of my CIVS calendar polls has zero votes. And the other has exactly 1 vote. That's not counting the votes of me & my girlfriend. (Obviously, with just a few votes, it would spoil any meaning of the result for me to vote, but I wanted there to be a few votes to help get it started and to keep it in the publicized list at the website. Of course I don't count our votes when I say how many people voted, or how they voted.)

My other poll has 4 votes (not counting mine). Some polls are popular, but the calendar-reform polls weren't.
 

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where?

Two at Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS). One at PoliticalForum.

My 1st CIVS poll had a poll-description that tried to be complete, and no one voted. My 2nd CIVS poll was much briefer, and got exactly one vote.

By the time I posted my PoliticalForum poll, I'd learned the lesson about brevity. I got 4 votes, overwhelmingly opposed to calendar-reform. Only one of those 4 people favored a reform calendar, the 28X13 calendar.

You could say that 2/5 of the poll-participants would like a new calendar. But everyone who didn't participate has to be counted too, as not being interested.


 
It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

At PoliticalForum they're mostly conservative, and most are very pleased with the recent 2016 election-result. At CIVS they're more progressive. But it was only the conservative Political forum that had 4 people willing to express any preference. Evidently conservatives opposed to change are much more willing to express their opinion.
 

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday.

Those things shouldn't be a problem. With the fixed calendar, just fix all of the holidays on weekdays, & encourage people to celebrate their holidays on a (perpetual) weekday date.


 
For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.

But isn't Easter whenever the Catholic Church says it is?

Christmas & New Year would be on Monday, with all the current fixed-calendar proposals. The non-church holidays are movable by law, and could all be put on perpetual weekdays, in a fixed calendar. Surely that would make a fixed calendar more appealing to people.
 
Michael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Sepp Rothwangl


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Sepp ROTHWANGL <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael,
I would not be so pessimistic!

When I showed people the result of my investigation on anno domini and how absurd this calendar is, almost all said: I want an alternative!

Maybe the problem with my polls is that I asked people about several alternative calendars, and that made it more than people wanted to hear about.

Maybe I should just offer one reform calendar proposal.

Maybe I should try this poll question:

Would you accept or oppose this calendar proposal:

Each quarter's 3 months have the following lengths, in days:

30,30,31.

Each year and each quarter begins on a Monday, so that each quarter's 3 months start on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday.

All day-off holidays are on weekdays.

Would a 1-proposal poll be likely to get more participation than did my multi-proposal polls?

It wouldn't find out which proposal people like best, but it would find out if one particular proposal gets more "Yes" than "No" votes.

Has there been any favorable discussion in any international organization, regarding calendar reform? If so, that could be called a start.

Michael Ossipoff
 
Regards

Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402

Am 05.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:

It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Sepp Rothwangl
Michael,

I think nobody will give up a tool, as long as it works good and as long he does not know as it works actually and has destructive roots.

sepp


Am 06.01.2017 um 18:33 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Sepp ROTHWANGL <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael,
I would not be so pessimistic!

When I showed people the result of my investigation on anno domini and how absurd this calendar is, almost all said: I want an alternative!

Maybe the problem with my polls is that I asked people about several alternative calendars, and that made it more than people wanted to hear about.

Maybe I should just offer one reform calendar proposal.

Maybe I should try this poll question:

Would you accept or oppose this calendar proposal:

Each quarter's 3 months have the following lengths, in days:

30,30,31.

Each year and each quarter begins on a Monday, so that each quarter's 3 months start on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday.

All day-off holidays are on weekdays.

Would a 1-proposal poll be likely to get more participation than did my multi-proposal polls?

It wouldn't find out which proposal people like best, but it would find out if one particular proposal gets more "Yes" than "No" votes.

Has there been any favorable discussion in any international organization, regarding calendar reform? If so, that could be called a start.

Michael Ossipoff
 
Regards

Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402

Am 05.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:

It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.







Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402
[hidden email]
www.calendersign.com
facebook.com/sepp.rothwangl



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action

But didn't calendar-reform come tantalizingly close to success during a period from the '20s up to 1955? Didn't Achellis's World Calendar get so close to endorsement by the League of Nations, and, later, the U.N. that they might have officially endorsed it if it didn't have blank days?

 

The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar

But now the Roman-Gregorian Calendar is used by nearly all, as the civil calendar. So it's possible for one calendar to be accepted for use by all.

Of course there's no one calendar proposal that would be everyone's ideal. But, if the Roman-Gregorian can be accepted by all, then might there be another proposal that could achieve that too?

 

This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules

But the Romans were changing the calendar's months capriciously willy-nilly.

[quote]
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar.
[/quote]

That sounds a lot more do-able. And it's been suggested that one of those parallel calendars (ISO WeekDate) could eventually naturally replace the Roman-Gregorian in civil use--not by any international agreement, but just by increasing personal usage. But I'm not aware of ISO WeekDate's business & government use being shared by any members of the public.

I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this

And someone here pointed out that many schools & colleges, as well, use some sort of fixed calendar for their internal scheduling (but never in their public interface).

Likewise the Broadcast-Calendar. Used (only) to facilitate internal scheduling.

That's surely convenient for companies, governments, schools & broadcasters. But most of us aren't any of those, and we don't share the convenience.
 

Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier


That sounds good. Because its result is that all holidays fall on weekdays, that would surely make it a popular proposal. That proposal should be offered to the public in a way heard by everyone. It sounds like it would be a great start.

Someone here said that many schools are already internally using fixed calendars for their scheduling. Yes, maybe it would be a step in the right direction if a law were passed for government to define holidays (on weekdays) according to a fixed calendar, even without universal adoption of a new civil calendar.

It seems to me that the ISO WeekDate calendar, already so widely used in business & government, would be the most natural choice. But I haven't heard of any public exposure to it.

Michael Ossipoff




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael and Calendar List

If you are going to do polling may I suggest that you find out which proposed reforms people have actually heard of and whether or not they have a favorable view of. the proposal s

You could ask something like

1 Have you heard of the Henry Hanke Calendar Reform?  If so, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of it?

2 Have you heard of the Symmetry 454 Calendar Reform?  If do, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of it?

3 Have you heard of the World Calendar Reform,? If so, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of it?

In this way you get to find out how many have heard of these proposals, and if so, what they think of them

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Sepp ROTHWANGL <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael,
I would not be so pessimistic!

When I showed people the result of my investigation on anno domini and how absurd this calendar is, almost all said: I want an alternative!

Maybe the problem with my polls is that I asked people about several alternative calendars, and that made it more than people wanted to hear about.

Maybe I should just offer one reform calendar proposal.

Maybe I should try this poll question:

Would you accept or oppose this calendar proposal:

Each quarter's 3 months have the following lengths, in days:

30,30,31.

Each year and each quarter begins on a Monday, so that each quarter's 3 months start on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday.

All day-off holidays are on weekdays.

Would a 1-proposal poll be likely to get more participation than did my multi-proposal polls?

It wouldn't find out which proposal people like best, but it would find out if one particular proposal gets more "Yes" than "No" votes.

Has there been any favorable discussion in any international organization, regarding calendar reform? If so, that could be called a start.

Michael Ossipoff
 
Regards

Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402

Am 05.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:

It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael and Calendar List

Those proposals that you mentioned all failed precisely because they were too comprehensive and allowed different groups to criticize verious portions The sticking point with many of them was breaking the sequence of the 7 day week. Any proposal that breaks the traditional week will never be accepted as a replacement There will be too many dissidents that will never accept it A cure that's worse than the disease

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action

But didn't calendar-reform come tantalizingly close to success during a period from the '20s up to 1955? Didn't Achellis's World Calendar get so close to endorsement by the League of Nations, and, later, the U.N. that they might have officially endorsed it if it didn't have blank days?

 

The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar

But now the Roman-Gregorian Calendar is used by nearly all, as the civil calendar. So it's possible for one calendar to be accepted for use by all.

Of course there's no one calendar proposal that would be everyone's ideal. But, if the Roman-Gregorian can be accepted by all, then might there be another proposal that could achieve that too?

 

This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules

But the Romans were changing the calendar's months capriciously willy-nilly.

[quote]
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar.
[/quote]

That sounds a lot more do-able. And it's been suggested that one of those parallel calendars (ISO WeekDate) could eventually naturally replace the Roman-Gregorian in civil use--not by any international agreement, but just by increasing personal usage. But I'm not aware of ISO WeekDate's business & government use being shared by any members of the public.

I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this

And someone here pointed out that many schools & colleges, as well, use some sort of fixed calendar for their internal scheduling (but never in their public interface).

Likewise the Broadcast-Calendar. Used (only) to facilitate internal scheduling.

That's surely convenient for companies, governments, schools & broadcasters. But most of us aren't any of those, and we don't share the convenience.
 

Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier


That sounds good. Because its result is that all holidays fall on weekdays, that would surely make it a popular proposal. That proposal should be offered to the public in a way heard by everyone. It sounds like it would be a great start.

Someone here said that many schools are already internally using fixed calendars for their scheduling. Yes, maybe it would be a step in the right direction if a law were passed for government to define holidays (on weekdays) according to a fixed calendar, even without universal adoption of a new civil calendar.

It seems to me that the ISO WeekDate calendar, already so widely used in business & government, would be the most natural choice. But I haven't heard of any public exposure to it.

Michael Ossipoff




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Sepp Rothwangl
Walter,

the seven day week is an totally absurde superstitious invention of an outdated weltanschauung.
Everybody would rest and work on different days, if they could…
That would life make much more easy and less stress.
sepp

Am 06.01.2017 um 20:07 schrieb Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:

Dear Michael and Calendar List

Those proposals that you mentioned all failed precisely because they were too comprehensive and allowed different groups to criticize verious portions The sticking point with many of them was breaking the sequence of the 7 day week. Any proposal that breaks the traditional week will never be accepted as a replacement There will be too many dissidents that will never accept it A cure that's worse than the disease

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action

But didn't calendar-reform come tantalizingly close to success during a period from the '20s up to 1955? Didn't Achellis's World Calendar get so close to endorsement by the League of Nations, and, later, the U.N. that they might have officially endorsed it if it didn't have blank days?

 

The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar

But now the Roman-Gregorian Calendar is used by nearly all, as the civil calendar. So it's possible for one calendar to be accepted for use by all.

Of course there's no one calendar proposal that would be everyone's ideal. But, if the Roman-Gregorian can be accepted by all, then might there be another proposal that could achieve that too?

 

This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules

But the Romans were changing the calendar's months capriciously willy-nilly.

[quote]
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar.
[/quote]

That sounds a lot more do-able. And it's been suggested that one of those parallel calendars (ISO WeekDate) could eventually naturally replace the Roman-Gregorian in civil use--not by any international agreement, but just by increasing personal usage. But I'm not aware of ISO WeekDate's business & government use being shared by any members of the public.

I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this

And someone here pointed out that many schools & colleges, as well, use some sort of fixed calendar for their internal scheduling (but never in their public interface).

Likewise the Broadcast-Calendar. Used (only) to facilitate internal scheduling.

That's surely convenient for companies, governments, schools & broadcasters. But most of us aren't any of those, and we don't share the convenience.
 

Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier


That sounds good. Because its result is that all holidays fall on weekdays, that would surely make it a popular proposal. That proposal should be offered to the public in a way heard by everyone. It sounds like it would be a great start.

Someone here said that many schools are already internally using fixed calendars for their scheduling. Yes, maybe it would be a step in the right direction if a law were passed for government to define holidays (on weekdays) according to a fixed calendar, even without universal adoption of a new civil calendar.

It seems to me that the ISO WeekDate calendar, already so widely used in business & government, would be the most natural choice. But I haven't heard of any public exposure to it.

Michael Ossipoff




On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.


Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.402
[hidden email]
www.calendersign.com
facebook.com/sepp.rothwangl



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Walter--

You wrote:

[quote]
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier
[/quote]

That Weekday Holiday Act sounds like a good idea, and a good approach to calendar-reform. It's something that would interest many or most people. And it's obviously most conveniently done via a fixed calendar. It would get a fixed calendar into use with something that everyone can relate to. That's a big step in the right direction even if that fixed calendar is (at least at first) only used for holiday-scheduling.

But there should be a provision to encourage schools, broadcasters & other business that have use for a fixed calendar, to use that same one.

Surely people in all countries would favor ensuring that the holidays give them the most extra days off. So the eventual hope would be that national holidaiy-scheduling fixed calendars would be in use in many countries.

It would be nice if there were some international agreement to use the same one.

Then, eventually, it might come natural for there to be an agreement to switch to it as the international civil calendar, when it's already in use and well-known everywhere.

Nearest-Monday is the obvious best choice for the year-start rule. Partly because it's used in ISO WeekDate, But also because Minimum-Displacement hasn't been widely discussed or written about among calendarists. Also, Minimum-Displacement's adjustability advantage is, for this purpose, a disadvantage: It would be necessary to reach agreement on what those adjustments' settings should be--the values of Y and Dzero.

Better to not have the adjustments, and just accept what Nearest-Monday & Gregorian already have. ...especially since ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday is already in international use.

As for the week-division system, it could be argued that ISO WeekDate is the natural choice, because it's already in international use.

But people are used to having months. A calendar with 30-day & 31-day months is desirable for the months' length-uniformity. 30,30,31 seems the best choice, among those, because of its least departure from the Roman months' start-days, and because someone here pointed out that 30,30,31 also divides the weekdays most equally between a quarter's months.

So it seems certain that Nearest-Monday should be used, and that the year-division system should be either ISO WeekDate or 30,30,31.   ...each of which has an argument for it.

What little evidence I have (from conversations & the low-turnout polls) suggests that people would like 30,30,31 better. But it's difficult to say whether that preference, or ISO WeekDate's use-precedent, would carry more weight with people, when it came to actually considering adoption.

Michael Ossipoff





On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar
I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier

Different strokes for different folks

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Michael Ossipoff
I said:

"Better to not have the adjustments, and just accept what Nearest-Monday & Gregorian already have."

I was referring to the reference tropical year, and the center of  periodic calendar displacement (jitter) of the relation between date and ecliptic-longitude.

Of course the Gregorian is intended to minimize the calendar's displacement with respect to the March equinox, and so that setting just comes with the Gregorian and with Nearest-Monday.

Whatever date/ecliptic-longitude relation constitutes the (slowly-drifting) current center of the Gregorian's periodic displacement (jitter)--I don't know what it is, but we've been accepting it fine for 435 years, and so Nearest-Monday's inheritance of that attribute from its use of the Gregorian doesn't add anything new to object to.

That's why I suggested that just using Nearest-Monday would be better than discussing what parameter-constant settings should be used with Minimum-Displacement (which, in any case, doesn't have the familiarity & use-precedent that Nearest-Monday has).

Michael Ossipoff

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

You wrote:

[quote]
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier
[/quote]

That Weekday Holiday Act sounds like a good idea, and a good approach to calendar-reform. It's something that would interest many or most people. And it's obviously most conveniently done via a fixed calendar. It would get a fixed calendar into use with something that everyone can relate to. That's a big step in the right direction even if that fixed calendar is (at least at first) only used for holiday-scheduling.

But there should be a provision to encourage schools, broadcasters & other business that have use for a fixed calendar, to use that same one.

Surely people in all countries would favor ensuring that the holidays give them the most extra days off. So the eventual hope would be that national holidaiy-scheduling fixed calendars would be in use in many countries.

It would be nice if there were some international agreement to use the same one.

Then, eventually, it might come natural for there to be an agreement to switch to it as the international civil calendar, when it's already in use and well-known everywhere.

Nearest-Monday is the obvious best choice for the year-start rule. Partly because it's used in ISO WeekDate, But also because Minimum-Displacement hasn't been widely discussed or written about among calendarists. Also, Minimum-Displacement's adjustability advantage is, for this purpose, a disadvantage: It would be necessary to reach agreement on what those adjustments' settings should be--the values of Y and Dzero.

Better to not have the adjustments, and just accept what Nearest-Monday & Gregorian already have. ...especially since ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday is already in international use.

As for the week-division system, it could be argued that ISO WeekDate is the natural choice, because it's already in international use.

But people are used to having months. A calendar with 30-day & 31-day months is desirable for the months' length-uniformity. 30,30,31 seems the best choice, among those, because of its least departure from the Roman months' start-days, and because someone here pointed out that 30,30,31 also divides the weekdays most equally between a quarter's months.

So it seems certain that Nearest-Monday should be used, and that the year-division system should be either ISO WeekDate or 30,30,31.   ...each of which has an argument for it.

What little evidence I have (from conversations & the low-turnout polls) suggests that people would like 30,30,31 better. But it's difficult to say whether that preference, or ISO WeekDate's use-precedent, would carry more weight with people, when it came to actually considering adoption.

Michael Ossipoff





On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar List

I don't think calendar reform is a matter for polls and political action The unstated assumption of such approach is that there is an ideal "one size fits all" calendar This is what has always doomed a comprehensive reform of the calendar Note that Pope Gregory's reform was very modest He did not change the form of the calendar at all He merely corrected the Julian calendar by dropping some days and changing the leap day rules
I believe that the most effective approach is to allow alternative calendars for specialized purposes These specialized calendars would not replace the Gregorian calendar but run parallel to it That is why I develop alternative names for the periods of my calendars; so that they can be used concurrently with the present calendar
I think that there are two groups that would be most suitable for alternative calendars Businesses and schools
Many businesses already use 52-53 week calendars for payroll and tax purposes In the US the IRS allows this Thus the Henry-Hanke with ISO 8601 leap weeks and my alternative months naming scheme could be practical for them
Schools have academic calendars that are complicated by holidays and vacations My North American Weekday Holiday Act would make many holidays fall on the same ISO weekday every year, making academic and vacation scheduling easier

Different strokes for different folks

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Friday, January 6, 2017 Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>:
>
> Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with […] is difficult,

That’s true, obviously.

> because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages.

It’s really difficult not to influence the results in a non-neutral or compensable way.

> I posted several polls on calendar-reform.

Where? It’s not just what and how you ask, but also where, when and whom – and who’s asking.

My experience with non-geeks is that almost everyone would like a perennial leap-week calendar *except* that hardly anyone wants to give up any holiday or have to always celebrate their birthday on/before a workday. For some, fixing the date of Easter (and those of dependent holidays) within the calendar would already be good enough.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Irv Bromberg
In reply to this post by Sepp Rothwangl
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sepp ROTHWANGL [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 04:06

May be of interest too:
The Tropical Year and Solar Calendar


Bromberg replies:

Sepp, in the context of a calendar-reform poll, why did you point us at the above article?
It might be relevant to Ossipoff's "minimum displacement" calendar, but that wasn't the topic thread.

Although the journal that it was published in contains many interesting articles, it is not a peer-reviewed journal.

The author criticized a previous article by Peck, listing multiple errors purportedly committed by Peck, then he proceeded to make a host of errors of his own:
  • He based his calendar proposal on a polynomial for the mean tropic year / mean solar longitude. This can't be the basis of any calendar because there isn't an astronomical event to verify its accuracy (no equinox or solstice).
  • He presented a "more accurate" polynomial than Peck, but then proceeded to modify it through serial approximations that he considered "good enough". Why bother with astronomical calculations if approximating them? The calculations are unavoidably inexact, so it would be better to choose an exact fixed arithmetic cycle that would be essentially no worse.
  • He made the typical mistake of assuming that deriving a leap rule is all that is necessary to define a calendar.
  • He considered that his polynomial is close enough to the Gregorian calendar, but he didn't consider the jitter of the latter, and he didn't even consider the difference in mean years. His mean year at J2000 was 365.242189669781 atomic days, which is about 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 45.2 seconds, which is about 26.8 seconds shorter than the Gregorian mean year (if we ignore the atomic day vs. mean solar day difference, which is close enough for J2000).
  • He didn't really consider the future evolution of the mean tropical year except for a very uncertain extrapolation of Delta T.
  • He did nothing to verify the accuracy of his proposed polynomials. My experience with Bretagnon's polynomials is that they are insufficient to use as stand-alone expressions, because they don't account for precession of the equinoxes. This would cause a very significant calendrical drift if not adjusted for. Arguably the present era version of Bretagnon's math are the IAU / SOFA algorithms, but to obtain the correct results one still must apply the appropriate transformations, see:

http://www.iausofa.org/


Note that the mean tropical year in terms of mean solar days is plotted as the black curve on this chart from my web site, based on numerical integration:


http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/leap/Solar-Year-Range.pdf


Observe that there is never an era when the black curve is nearly horizontal. If there was, then a simple fixed arithmetic calendar with a constant mean year could provide an excellent approximation during that era. Well, OK, he's not worried about that because he's using a polynomial, not a fixed mean year.


--- Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada


http://www.sym454.org/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Phil De Rosa
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Hi Michael.  Don’t be concerned about the low number of replies on a personal or even a poll response level.  The average response to any written poll or questionnaire is low. 
 
Besides it is not going to be in the hands of the public to make a decision on Calendar reform, all we can do is make the suggestions.  Governments and business will do the deciding.  The British Commonwealth changed over with the agreement of business, in the 1970s I believe, to the Metric System from the Imperial System of Weights and Measures without polling the public and though there was some resistance it was adopted and most everyone is happier today that they did.
 
One thing we cannot do is have the arrogance to think that whatever calendar change is adopted ‘now’ will last forever.  We cannot dictate to the future population of the World say in 2582 or even 100 years from now what they must use.  Nothing is fixed and forever, everything is dynamic and in a constant state of flux whether it is natural or man made.  Just as we’re going to change what was proclaimed in 1582 what we decide now will most certainly be changed in the future.
 
I agree with you about switching to a 30, 30, 31 day fixed calendar as being the simplest to accept as a universal, secular World Calendar in terms of the general population by people on a city street, farm, hillside, in a desert, or wherever, in both the developed and the non-developed world.  It only has to be as simple, regular and familiar as possible.  But also all other calendars would continue to exist along side of it.
 
There are many good reasons as you and others on the Calendr-L list have outlined over the years for adopting the 30,30,31 day fixed calendar quarters with the last month having 32 days, or better, with there being an intercalary day called Day ‘O’, World Day, or Earth Day though this would not be accepted by the ‘seven’ day week purists.  This mindset rejects compromise and for now we have to live and work with it but as we all know the seven day week was man made and is not a natural phenomena.  I really don’t understand the sanctity of it and why a compromise can’t be made that in exchange for keeping the seven day week an annual intercalary day can’t be accepted along with an intercalary Leap Day every four years.
 
As I’ve posted before, because nature played us dirty by having roughly 365 1/4 days in a year and roughly 29 1/2 days in a month rather than giving us 300 (10 months of 30 days), 360 (12 months of 30 days), or 400 (4 quarters of 100 days each giving us 10 weeks of 10 days each), we have no choice but to work around nature’s boundaries as well as we can.
 
I would also set the Calendar year to begin on the Summer Solstice which would be a more neutral starting point.   I think Michael may have also suggested this.   Accuracy is not a problem in the general publics mind so the 91 day quarters would begin within one to three days of a solstice or equinox.   The Gregorian Calendar after all begins on January 1st, 10 days after the Winter (Northern Hemisphere) Solstice.
 
Seasons should be recognized in a Calendar, whether it’s two or four or six seasons, as they are an important time period on a calendar as they affect our work, our health, our vacation, transport, farming, manufacturing, wholesale and retail industries, sports, etc..   I’ve seen people living in the Caribbean and Mexico sometimes wearing tuques and gloves in December, January and February as some find anything under 20* Celsius to be cool or cold.
 
Things like a leap second or jitter, though important in their own right, are of no interest to the common man or woman nor are they interested in projections of what Nature has in store for us 500, 1,000, or 20,000 years hence.   Earlier in the year a TV news reporter asked a half dozen people on the street in a major city in either the US or Canada ‘did they know what a Leap Second was?’ and the answers were; no, is it a music band, a new movie, and other similar responses.   I don’t think anyone knew.
 
And I also agree with I think it was either Victor or Amos who suggested that we add 10,000 years to the calendar to bring it roughly back to the end of the last Ice Age or the beginning of the current Holocene period which would make it now 12,017, a more neutral time frame.
 
Though Brij’s proposal requires the least change, any change, small or large, will cost in the short term but will benefit business and individuals in the near future.  But change is necessary or the Calendr-L list would not exist.
 
Phil De Rosa
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results
 
It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.

Michael Ossipoff
 
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)
 
One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff

 
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Amos Shapir-2
Hi Phil and calendar people,

If you wish to cater to the needs of the general population, you MUST accept the seven day week.  It's not just a matter of a few purists, it's what a significant part of the world's population had been living by for millennia.  Even non-religious people still respect their traditions, which are mostly based upon religious practices; and religions simply cannot compromise.  (I don't know about other religions, but at least in Judaism any break of the seven day cycle would necessarily require redefinition of almost every practice.)

The main trouble is not that of using a different calendar for religious practices than the one used for business; actually a majority of the population already do, as holidays of non-Christian people are not defined by the Gregorian calendar.  But if the business calendar breaks the 7-day week, they will have to deal with the discrepancy between the calendars every week, instead of just a few days each year.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Phil De Rosa <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael.  Don’t be concerned about the low number of replies on a personal or even a poll response level.  The average response to any written poll or questionnaire is low. 
 
Besides it is not going to be in the hands of the public to make a decision on Calendar reform, all we can do is make the suggestions.  Governments and business will do the deciding.  The British Commonwealth changed over with the agreement of business, in the 1970s I believe, to the Metric System from the Imperial System of Weights and Measures without polling the public and though there was some resistance it was adopted and most everyone is happier today that they did.
 
One thing we cannot do is have the arrogance to think that whatever calendar change is adopted ‘now’ will last forever.  We cannot dictate to the future population of the World say in 2582 or even 100 years from now what they must use.  Nothing is fixed and forever, everything is dynamic and in a constant state of flux whether it is natural or man made.  Just as we’re going to change what was proclaimed in 1582 what we decide now will most certainly be changed in the future.
 
I agree with you about switching to a 30, 30, 31 day fixed calendar as being the simplest to accept as a universal, secular World Calendar in terms of the general population by people on a city street, farm, hillside, in a desert, or wherever, in both the developed and the non-developed world.  It only has to be as simple, regular and familiar as possible.  But also all other calendars would continue to exist along side of it.
 
There are many good reasons as you and others on the Calendr-L list have outlined over the years for adopting the 30,30,31 day fixed calendar quarters with the last month having 32 days, or better, with there being an intercalary day called Day ‘O’, World Day, or Earth Day though this would not be accepted by the ‘seven’ day week purists.  This mindset rejects compromise and for now we have to live and work with it but as we all know the seven day week was man made and is not a natural phenomena.  I really don’t understand the sanctity of it and why a compromise can’t be made that in exchange for keeping the seven day week an annual intercalary day can’t be accepted along with an intercalary Leap Day every four years.
 
As I’ve posted before, because nature played us dirty by having roughly 365 1/4 days in a year and roughly 29 1/2 days in a month rather than giving us 300 (10 months of 30 days), 360 (12 months of 30 days), or 400 (4 quarters of 100 days each giving us 10 weeks of 10 days each), we have no choice but to work around nature’s boundaries as well as we can.
 
I would also set the Calendar year to begin on the Summer Solstice which would be a more neutral starting point.   I think Michael may have also suggested this.   Accuracy is not a problem in the general publics mind so the 91 day quarters would begin within one to three days of a solstice or equinox.   The Gregorian Calendar after all begins on January 1st, 10 days after the Winter (Northern Hemisphere) Solstice.
 
Seasons should be recognized in a Calendar, whether it’s two or four or six seasons, as they are an important time period on a calendar as they affect our work, our health, our vacation, transport, farming, manufacturing, wholesale and retail industries, sports, etc..   I’ve seen people living in the Caribbean and Mexico sometimes wearing tuques and gloves in December, January and February as some find anything under 20* Celsius to be cool or cold.
 
Things like a leap second or jitter, though important in their own right, are of no interest to the common man or woman nor are they interested in projections of what Nature has in store for us 500, 1,000, or 20,000 years hence.   Earlier in the year a TV news reporter asked a half dozen people on the street in a major city in either the US or Canada ‘did they know what a Leap Second was?’ and the answers were; no, is it a music band, a new movie, and other similar responses.   I don’t think anyone knew.
 
And I also agree with I think it was either Victor or Amos who suggested that we add 10,000 years to the calendar to bring it roughly back to the end of the last Ice Age or the beginning of the current Holocene period which would make it now 12,017, a more neutral time frame.
 
Though Brij’s proposal requires the least change, any change, small or large, will cost in the short term but will benefit business and individuals in the near future.  But change is necessary or the Calendr-L list would not exist.
 
Phil De Rosa
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results
 
It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.

Michael Ossipoff
 
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)
 
One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff

 
 



--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Cost vs Change Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Phil, Amos, Michael, all sirs:
>Though Brij’s proposal requires the least change, any change, small or large, will cost in the short term but will benefit business and individuals in the near future.  But change is necessary or the Calendr-L list would not exist.
I thank you for supporting my efforts. The fact, I have stuck with my aimed options has been the "desired change" against the cost that shall go to educating the public - from children at primary-school level to house wife wasting a huge chunk of her rest hours struggling with her children getting their home work done; and the Tax-payer's money which must be wasted for making too many changes if Reform of the Gregorian calendar option need be HUNG indefinite!
As a man with hardly any say & my ripe age to 'fall with time', I have put in my options to USMA and Calendar-L..... to benefit life on Earth. I admire my wife who has tolerated me for 54-years since our marriage; out of which 45-years have gone in our *arguing waste of time* in my efforts for reforming the calendar*. Indian National Saka calendar is good but not good enough to replace the Gregorian to become a candidate for United Nations or the World Calendar Organisation' sponsored option. Thus, I stand isolated on the burning deck like Casablanka - the child waiting for his FATHER to rescue him! 
Tomorrow February 01 is Basant Psnchmi Day, in Indian calendar, when we were married in 1963; our child Munish was born on 1963 December 13 (a Friday) - a gem of god's creation to us. May he be blessed with health & age!
Regards,
Brij B. Vij, Author
Modified Gregorian Calendar
Tuesday, 2017 January 31H15:25 (decimal)


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:00 AM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Phil and calendar people,

If you wish to cater to the needs of the general population, you MUST accept the seven day week.  It's not just a matter of a few purists, it's what a significant part of the world's population had been living by for millennia.  Even non-religious people still respect their traditions, which are mostly based upon religious practices; and religions simply cannot compromise.  (I don't know about other religions, but at least in Judaism any break of the seven day cycle would necessarily require redefinition of almost every practice.)

The main trouble is not that of using a different calendar for religious practices than the one used for business; actually a majority of the population already do, as holidays of non-Christian people are not defined by the Gregorian calendar.  But if the business calendar breaks the 7-day week, they will have to deal with the discrepancy between the calendars every week, instead of just a few days each year.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Phil De Rosa <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael.  Don’t be concerned about the low number of replies on a personal or even a poll response level.  The average response to any written poll or questionnaire is low. 
 
Besides it is not going to be in the hands of the public to make a decision on Calendar reform, all we can do is make the suggestions.  Governments and business will do the deciding.  The British Commonwealth changed over with the agreement of business, in the 1970s I believe, to the Metric System from the Imperial System of Weights and Measures without polling the public and though there was some resistance it was adopted and most everyone is happier today that they did.
 
One thing we cannot do is have the arrogance to think that whatever calendar change is adopted ‘now’ will last forever.  We cannot dictate to the future population of the World say in 2582 or even 100 years from now what they must use.  Nothing is fixed and forever, everything is dynamic and in a constant state of flux whether it is natural or man made.  Just as we’re going to change what was proclaimed in 1582 what we decide now will most certainly be changed in the future.
 
I agree with you about switching to a 30, 30, 31 day fixed calendar as being the simplest to accept as a universal, secular World Calendar in terms of the general population by people on a city street, farm, hillside, in a desert, or wherever, in both the developed and the non-developed world.  It only has to be as simple, regular and familiar as possible.  But also all other calendars would continue to exist along side of it.
 
There are many good reasons as you and others on the Calendr-L list have outlined over the years for adopting the 30,30,31 day fixed calendar quarters with the last month having 32 days, or better, with there being an intercalary day called Day ‘O’, World Day, or Earth Day though this would not be accepted by the ‘seven’ day week purists.  This mindset rejects compromise and for now we have to live and work with it but as we all know the seven day week was man made and is not a natural phenomena.  I really don’t understand the sanctity of it and why a compromise can’t be made that in exchange for keeping the seven day week an annual intercalary day can’t be accepted along with an intercalary Leap Day every four years.
 
As I’ve posted before, because nature played us dirty by having roughly 365 1/4 days in a year and roughly 29 1/2 days in a month rather than giving us 300 (10 months of 30 days), 360 (12 months of 30 days), or 400 (4 quarters of 100 days each giving us 10 weeks of 10 days each), we have no choice but to work around nature’s boundaries as well as we can.
 
I would also set the Calendar year to begin on the Summer Solstice which would be a more neutral starting point.   I think Michael may have also suggested this.   Accuracy is not a problem in the general publics mind so the 91 day quarters would begin within one to three days of a solstice or equinox.   The Gregorian Calendar after all begins on January 1st, 10 days after the Winter (Northern Hemisphere) Solstice.
 
Seasons should be recognized in a Calendar, whether it’s two or four or six seasons, as they are an important time period on a calendar as they affect our work, our health, our vacation, transport, farming, manufacturing, wholesale and retail industries, sports, etc..   I’ve seen people living in the Caribbean and Mexico sometimes wearing tuques and gloves in December, January and February as some find anything under 20* Celsius to be cool or cold.
 
Things like a leap second or jitter, though important in their own right, are of no interest to the common man or woman nor are they interested in projections of what Nature has in store for us 500, 1,000, or 20,000 years hence.   Earlier in the year a TV news reporter asked a half dozen people on the street in a major city in either the US or Canada ‘did they know what a Leap Second was?’ and the answers were; no, is it a music band, a new movie, and other similar responses.   I don’t think anyone knew.
 
And I also agree with I think it was either Victor or Amos who suggested that we add 10,000 years to the calendar to bring it roughly back to the end of the last Ice Age or the beginning of the current Holocene period which would make it now 12,017, a more neutral time frame.
 
Though Brij’s proposal requires the least change, any change, small or large, will cost in the short term but will benefit business and individuals in the near future.  But change is necessary or the Calendr-L list would not exist.
 
Phil De Rosa
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results
 
It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.

Michael Ossipoff
 
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)
 
One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff

 
 



--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir-2
Dear List,

The Christian calendar is outdated, corrupted, wrong, manipulative, superstitious, religious, fictitous  and so on…
When you read my articles about Anno Domini, you will be confirmed.

But to establish a new secular calendar - basing on real facts and celestial movements-  will be a long way to go.

Thus I started with a tiny first step, an alternative to the Julian Days, because Julian Days is also based upon the religious Christian calendar.

https://www.academia.edu/24708257/CEP_an_alternative_to_JDN

See here a German article of Austrian governmental Newspaper: 


Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.377
[hidden email]
www.calendersign.com
facebook.com/sepp.rothwangl



Am 31.01.2017 um 10:00 schrieb Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>:

Hi Phil and calendar people,

If you wish to cater to the needs of the general population, you MUST accept the seven day week.  It's not just a matter of a few purists, it's what a significant part of the world's population had been living by for millennia.  Even non-religious people still respect their traditions, which are mostly based upon religious practices; and religions simply cannot compromise.  (I don't know about other religions, but at least in Judaism any break of the seven day cycle would necessarily require redefinition of almost every practice.)

The main trouble is not that of using a different calendar for religious practices than the one used for business; actually a majority of the population already do, as holidays of non-Christian people are not defined by the Gregorian calendar.  But if the business calendar breaks the 7-day week, they will have to deal with the discrepancy between the calendars every week, instead of just a few days each year.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Phil De Rosa <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael.  Don’t be concerned about the low number of replies on a personal or even a poll response level.  The average response to any written poll or questionnaire is low. 
 
Besides it is not going to be in the hands of the public to make a decision on Calendar reform, all we can do is make the suggestions.  Governments and business will do the deciding.  The British Commonwealth changed over with the agreement of business, in the 1970s I believe, to the Metric System from the Imperial System of Weights and Measures without polling the public and though there was some resistance it was adopted and most everyone is happier today that they did.
 
One thing we cannot do is have the arrogance to think that whatever calendar change is adopted ‘now’ will last forever.  We cannot dictate to the future population of the World say in 2582 or even 100 years from now what they must use.  Nothing is fixed and forever, everything is dynamic and in a constant state of flux whether it is natural or man made.  Just as we’re going to change what was proclaimed in 1582 what we decide now will most certainly be changed in the future.
 
I agree with you about switching to a 30, 30, 31 day fixed calendar as being the simplest to accept as a universal, secular World Calendar in terms of the general population by people on a city street, farm, hillside, in a desert, or wherever, in both the developed and the non-developed world.  It only has to be as simple, regular and familiar as possible.  But also all other calendars would continue to exist along side of it.
 
There are many good reasons as you and others on the Calendr-L list have outlined over the years for adopting the 30,30,31 day fixed calendar quarters with the last month having 32 days, or better, with there being an intercalary day called Day ‘O’, World Day, or Earth Day though this would not be accepted by the ‘seven’ day week purists.  This mindset rejects compromise and for now we have to live and work with it but as we all know the seven day week was man made and is not a natural phenomena.  I really don’t understand the sanctity of it and why a compromise can’t be made that in exchange for keeping the seven day week an annual intercalary day can’t be accepted along with an intercalary Leap Day every four years.
 
As I’ve posted before, because nature played us dirty by having roughly 365 1/4 days in a year and roughly 29 1/2 days in a month rather than giving us 300 (10 months of 30 days), 360 (12 months of 30 days), or 400 (4 quarters of 100 days each giving us 10 weeks of 10 days each), we have no choice but to work around nature’s boundaries as well as we can.
 
I would also set the Calendar year to begin on the Summer Solstice which would be a more neutral starting point.   I think Michael may have also suggested this.   Accuracy is not a problem in the general publics mind so the 91 day quarters would begin within one to three days of a solstice or equinox.   The Gregorian Calendar after all begins on January 1st, 10 days after the Winter (Northern Hemisphere) Solstice.
 
Seasons should be recognized in a Calendar, whether it’s two or four or six seasons, as they are an important time period on a calendar as they affect our work, our health, our vacation, transport, farming, manufacturing, wholesale and retail industries, sports, etc..   I’ve seen people living in the Caribbean and Mexico sometimes wearing tuques and gloves in December, January and February as some find anything under 20* Celsius to be cool or cold.
 
Things like a leap second or jitter, though important in their own right, are of no interest to the common man or woman nor are they interested in projections of what Nature has in store for us 500, 1,000, or 20,000 years hence.   Earlier in the year a TV news reporter asked a half dozen people on the street in a major city in either the US or Canada ‘did they know what a Leap Second was?’ and the answers were; no, is it a music band, a new movie, and other similar responses.   I don’t think anyone knew.
 
And I also agree with I think it was either Victor or Amos who suggested that we add 10,000 years to the calendar to bring it roughly back to the end of the last Ice Age or the beginning of the current Holocene period which would make it now 12,017, a more neutral time frame.
 
Though Brij’s proposal requires the least change, any change, small or large, will cost in the short term but will benefit business and individuals in the near future.  But change is necessary or the Calendr-L list would not exist.
 
Phil De Rosa
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Calendar-Reform Poll Results
 
It would be misleading to say that my 3 polls showed that 3 our of 5 people (Yes, the sample is too small to reliably say anything about the overall population) prefer to keep Roman-Gregorian.

The main thing that it shows is that there's practically zero interest, among the public, for calendar-reform.

Michael Ossipoff
 
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Polling about anything that people aren't already familiar with--polling about something like alternative calendars, as opposed to  candidates or ice-cream flavors, etc. is difficult, because it's necessary to define the poll's alternatives, and to say something about their relative advantages & disadvantages. That evaluation can be done objectively, but the problem is that practically no one is willing to read the article that is needed to define and compare the alternatives.

I posted several polls on calendar-reform. In the first one, I tried to make the explanations fairly complete, and zero people participated in the poll.

In the 2nd one at the same website, I made the definitions & comparisons much briefer, and, as a result, one person responded to the poll.

At another website, 4 people responded to the poll. So: 5 poll-respondents.

Of those 5, one of them preferred the 30,30,31 fixed calendar.

(For brevity, I didn't ask them to vote between Minimum-Displacement & Nearest-Monday--But, from conversation, there's indication that Nearest-Monday would be more likely to be accepted.)
 
One of them liked the 28X13 fixed calendar.

The other three preferred to keep the current Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

Here's a typical comment:

"No reason to change. It works, and the cost to change to one of the other forms would be enormous. It would make Y2K look cheap."

I'd like to have pointed out that a fixed calendar will save lots of money. But, regrettably, no advocate of a fixed calendar has ever provided any substantiation of that claim--with some verification & itemization.

So there wasn't any argument that I could give, in reply to that person's objection, which was shared by others.

Michael Ossipoff

 
 



--
Amos Shapir
 

12
Loading...