[LEAPSECS] Schedule for success

Nero Imhard nimh at pipe.nl
Mon Dec 29 18:46:19 EST 2008

Late reaction. Was still in my outbox. The current discussions are
sufficiently annoying to send it anyway:

On 2008-12-23, at 09:43, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> The rest of us have no trouble with a tolerance of up to (at least)

> one hour, because that's what is already the reality for 99.9..%

> of the population.

> I'm still looking for the "poster boy" reason for your 1sec tolerance

> claim.

You don't need such a reason. It's up to the people (ITU?) who want to
change an existing definition to make their case. "Although we hear
protests, we don't see any objection we deem valid" doesn't quite cut
it, does it?

I still don't get why you are insisting that UTC could be changed. To
get rid of leap seconds in broadcast time scales, switching to
something like TI would buy you your solution AND will not upset
anyone using UTC. As for civil time, it's up to *legislators* to
decide what civil time should be. Most have chosen (a derivative of)
UTC, quite probably because it follows UT. Overriding such a decision
by changing the reference frame is foul play.

What keeps bothering me is that the prospect of *changing a
definition* (of UTC) doesn't seem to make you (phk) blink at all. A
stated property of UTC is that it follows UT to within one second, and
changing UTC in this respect is an insult to its users. It is
betrayal, and undermines the timescale's authority.

If leap seconds are bugging you, then change you choice of time scale.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20081230/f14768ec/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list