Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus rather than compromise

From: Rob Seaman <>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:48:35 -0700

On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> I thought you were busy with your analysis document ?

Let's see...rummage, rummage...what did I say? Ah, yes:

>> I'm going to refrain from commenting on the "best" choices from
>> the decision tree until it nears completion.

I don't see that I've violated that intent. I stated that consensus
was better than artificial compromise. And my message acknowledged
that socially pragmatic choices such as you advocate might indeed be
appropriate - if in service of appropriate ends. I doubt it came as
a surprise to anyone that I still support the notion that civil time
should be a representation - of some sort - of solar time. Nowhere
in that message did I advocate one solution over another of how to
bring this about.

I did find it striking, however, that the public confusion being
discussed was completely unconnected to issues of precision
timekeeping such as leap seconds. Rather, the very definition of
civil time was misunderstood, whether by Microsoft or by somebody
else. If the solution to the perceived problem of leap seconds is to
eradicate them, is the solution to the problem of confusion caused by
Daylight Saving Time to convince the politicians to vote against it?
We'd have more luck legislating against the transfer of angular
momentum from the Earth to the Moon...

Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
Received on Mon Aug 29 2005 - 11:49:34 PDT

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