[LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less
M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Sun Dec 28 11:47:17 EST 2008
In message: <0B4062CC-0E7E-407F-A856-37F9C74DC081 at noao.edu>
Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu> writes:
: I wrote:
: >> The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term
: >> future.
: Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: > ITU has no such responsibility:
: > 1 The purposes of the Union are:
: > a) to maintain and extend international cooperation
: > among all its Member States for the improvement and
: > rational use of telecommunications of all kinds;
: > [...]
: > (http://www.itu.int/net/about/basic-texts/constitution/chapteri.aspx)
: > If leap-seconds impeede telecommunications, ITU has a responsibility
: > to get rid of them.
: 1) An organization with a limited scope (telecommunications) should
: not control a standard with a much broader scope (timekeeping).
: 2) All organizations have an implicit responsibility not to pursue
: shortsighted agendas. If an option has no long term future, the ITU
: certainly has no business considering it.
Leap seconds was a short-sighted agenda. The goal was noble, but the
implementation was flawed. Changing things to be less flawed is
better. But in any such change there will be winners and losers.
More information about the LEAPSECS