RE: [LEAPSECS] Draft Questionnaire

From: <matsakis.demetrios_at_USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:49:07 -0500

This was a useful comment, and I will amend my questionnaire so as to
explicitly ask for an estimate of the effects on any _users_ of URSI systems
as well as on the systems themselves. Adding this also may bring extra
responses to question 9, which solicits any comment the responder would like
to add.

P.S. I have received so little feedback I was afraid my email hadn't gotten
out. Please blast away!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seeds, Glen [mailto:Glen.Seeds_at_COGNOS.COM]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Draft Questionnaire
> The way in which this questionnaire is designed does not collect the
> information that is the basis of a large portion of the
> resistance to this
> proposal: that UTC will no longer reasonably track local time
> in any usable
> way, and this will inconvenience huge numbers of application users (as
> opposed to vendors).
> The costs of this are not readily quantifiable, and are not
> tied to specific
> applications. The current UTC mechanism provides for a
> reasonable mapping
> between TAI and local time. The proposal destroys that, and
> therefore brings
> back the problem that UTC was introduced to solve. UTC will become an
> emasculated artifact of history, serving only to clutter the
> universe and
> avoid a switch from UTA to TAI of a number of existing
> applications that
> should have used TAI in the first place.
> /glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: matsakis.demetrios_at_USNO.NAVY.MIL
> [mailto:matsakis.demetrios_at_USNO.NAVY.MIL]
> Sent: January 14, 2003 6:16 PM
> Subject: [LEAPSECS] Draft Questionnaire
> As many of you know, I am the Chair of a Working Group (WG)
> on UTC for the
> International Union of Radio Scientists (URSI). Several years ago I
> distributed a questionnaire as the chair of a similar
> committee of URSI
> Commission J.
> My WG is considering sending the following questionnaire to
> URSI-members.
> The intent is to find out what the true costs would be if UTC
> is redefined
> so that there are no new leap seconds after N years, and what
> the costs
> would be of continuing with the same UTC definition we have
> now. I would be
> interested in your comments, given the scope of the
> questionnaire and my
> limited charter.
> To my knowledge, very few of you are URSI members and
> therefore you will not
> be asked this question by my WG. However I predict that any
> information
> along the lines of the questionnaire would be received with
> interest by the
> points of contact in any of the other relevant international
> bodies to which
> you may belong.
> Demetrios Matsakis
> **************************************************************
> **************
> ********
> 1. Name and Position
> 2. Contact information
> 3. URSI Commissions of which you are a member
> 4. If it were decided to change the definition of UTC so
> that no leap
> seconds would be inserted after a specified date, 5 years in
> the future,
> would any extra effort be required to adjust any system you work on?
> 5. If your answer to question 4 is yes, for each system
> affected please
> provide the information in 5a through 5h. If these estimates are be
> difficult to formulate, you may wish to indicate the range of answers.
> Please feel free to contact a member of the Working Group to
> discuss the
> level of detail to provide so as to best help us represent
> your needs to
> a. Name of system
> b. Brief description of system
> c. Hours of extra labor that would be required and for what
> general purpose,
> such as a software review.
> d. Extra equipment that must be purchased, and
> approximate cost to
> purchase
> e. Extra equipment that must be developed, and approximate cost.
> f. Installation cost of extra equipment
> g. Risks involved in modifying the system.
> h. Costs in terms of system performance or final product once the
> adjustments are correctly made
> 6. If the decision were made to insert no new leap seconds
> as of today,
> please indicate which of your responses to questions and 4
> and 5 would be
> different.
> 7. Is there an implementation date that would significantly
> decrease the
> costs indicated in your response to question 5? If so,
> please provide the
> data and associated costs.
> 8. Please provide the approximate cost to your systems
> of incorporating
> the next leap second, should one be called for in the year 2003.
> a. Hours of labor
> b. Equipment purchase
> c. Probability that leap second will not be correctly
> adjusted for
> d. Costs in terms of final product or system performance
> if the leap
> second is not correctly included
> e. Costs in terms of final product or system performance
> even if the
> leap second is correctly allowed for.
> 9. Please use this space to make any comments or provide any
> information you
> feel appropriate.
> 10. It is possible that we would like to publicly identify
> your system(s) as
> relevant to the decision. In that case, do we have your
> permission to fully
> quote your reply?
> This message may contain privileged and/or confidential
> information. If you
> have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended
> recipient, you
> may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any
> attachments, delete it immediately from your system and
> notify the sender
> promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:49:51 PST

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