why? it'll be closer to each camp's arguments for their position 6 months out of the year. so 6 months out of the year each "side" will be miffed, but... they're that way anyway, and we all will save collectively huge amounts of time not bothering to change clocks/schedules/etc. twice a year.

There’s a hierarchy of problems: the worst thing is harshly disrupting everyone’s schedule — all three choices are better than the status quo.

I’d prefer the remaining energy go toward encouraging employers to offer more flexibility in schedules: time zones cover enough territory that every choice is going to inconvenience millions of people around the edges, and allowing more spread would also be a great way to make rush hour less pronounced.

Funnily enough, I've once heard the quote: "A good compromise is one that leaves everyone unhappy"