Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:38:49 +0100

In message <>, Ed Davies writes:
>Wow, things have got really stirred up around here. Lots of interesting
>points but I'll just concentrate on one...
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> Well, the BIPM doesn't really want anybody to use TAI, their director
>> said as much last year, and I can see where he is coming from on that
>> one.
>Since the usual response of the pro-leap second lobby to people
>who want a uniform timescale is "use TAI" this is significant.
>Do you have any information or references on why the BIPM director
>said this?

As I understood it, it was mainly that TAI is a post-factum "postal"

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sun Jan 08 2006 - 04:49:48 PST

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