Re: [LEAPSECS] Approach to leap second discussion

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_NOAO.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:30:56 -0700

> I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.

I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
"tricky" :-) are always positive. Timekeeping is a fundamental
issue. It would be remarkable if there weren't diverse opinions.
Any negative aspects of this discussion are related to those who
don't choose to participate. Which is to say, those who claim to
have decision making authority over UTC at the ITU, for instance.

The folks on this list appear to cluster into two groups (speak up if
your opinion diverges from both):

        1) Civil time should remain layered on UTC. UTC should remain
largely unchanged. Leap seconds should continue.


        2) Civil time should be layered on some flavor of interval time.
That timescale might be a variation of TAI called TI. TI will not
have leap seconds.

The proposal submitted to the ITU is neither of these. It is:

        3) Civil time should remain layered on UTC. UTC should be modified
to no longer be a useful approximation to "universal time". Leap
seconds will be issued 3600 at a time.

You all know where I stand - but there are worlds of difference
between #2 and #3 as alternatives to #1. All three proposals face
the same looming quadratic emergency.

Received on Sun Jan 22 2006 - 14:31:02 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT