Re: [LEAPSECS] Leap second status?

From: Gyrgy Szondy <gyorgy_szondy_at_HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue Jan 7 11:21:08 2003

Dear All,

The survey results Mr. Kuhn sent us is quite impressive and useful.

However I do not share his opinion that UTC redefinition should be decided upon a vote.

I consider the unsatisfaction rate of 10% is quite high, and the 24% of willingness of change is far enough to take this request seriously.

Anyway it is a requirement against a system that is needed at least 10% of users. UTC should fulfill this requiremet to be up to date.

Best Regards,

György Szondy

>From: Markus Kuhn
>Reply-To: Leap Seconds Issues
>Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Leap second status?
>Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:18:54 +0000
>I just received the IERS Annual Report 2001, which reports on pp 43-44
>on a survey about a possible UTC redefinition. Over a thousand
>questionaires were sent out and 247 responses received in Summer 2002.
>Results for the most critical answers:
>Are you satisfied by the current UTC determination method with leap
>second adjustment?
> 90% YES, 10% NO
>Do you think it would be better to change the determination method of
> 55% NO, 24% YES, 21% NO OPINION
>Sounds to me like the entire idea of a UTC change is quite unpopular
>among IERS users.
>Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
>Email: mkuhn at, WWW:

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*. Received on Tue Jan 07 2003 - 11:21:08 PST

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