RE: [LEAPSECS] system design?

From: <matsakis.demetrios_at_USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:10:14 -0400

As the person who established this listserv, I want to agree with Rob Seaman
that in some sense it is peripheral to the debate. I set this up as a way
to communicate with the many people who responded to my URSI survey, but the
formal decision making will be far more sensitive to contributions made at
the coming conference and through the relevant committees of the
international bodies that the ITU/R has contacted.

I suppose I would count as an "insider", and I remember hearing no
discussion on alternative names for a UTC with leap-hours or without new
leap seconds. It may well be that here or there someone has made an
off-hand comment about a new name, but right now the committees and working
groups are more concerned with studying the real-world consequences of a
change than giving it a name.

Demetrios Matsakis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Seaman [mailto:seaman_at_NOAO.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:56 PM
> Subject: [LEAPSECS] system design?
> It has become clear that LEAPSECS is only a peripheral forum to the
> leap second debate. One suspects that different factions on
> the "inside"
> of the discussion have been making use of LEAPSECS primarily
> to formulate
> tactics to subvert the desires expressed on the mailing list. Perhaps
> it is naive to expect folks to behave otherwise.

> So, could somebody on the inside please comment on possible
> alternative
> names for the proposed "constant offset from TAI" successor timescale
> to UTC?
Received on Mon Apr 28 2003 - 16:10:23 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:54 PDT