[LEAPSECS] We can all be winners
seaman at noao.edu
Sun Dec 28 18:12:40 EST 2008
M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Leap seconds was a short-sighted agenda. The goal was noble,
Wow! Even I wouldn't ascribe nobility to leap seconds :-)
> but the implementation was flawed.
Yes. Many shortsighted technical projects adopted UTC when they had
no business doing so. The fundamental fix is to relayer these
nonconforming projects on timescale(s) better suited to their purpose,
not to fundamentally redefine UTC to no longer represent universal time.
> Changing things to be less flawed is better.
This is a tautology by the definition of "less flawed". However, if a
system is permitted to evolve blindly it may well end up stranded at a
local flaw minimum, with a much better design elsewhere in parameter
> But in any such change there will be winners and losers.
This is yet another assertion that we're engaged in a zero-sum game:
Rather, the nine years spent ankle-biting at the ponderous
machinations of the ITU could have been better spent actually
discovering a full set of requirements for civil timekeeping.
Blinkered thinking could have been replaced with a structured design
process. We would all have benefited.
More information about the LEAPSECS