[LEAPSECS] How good could civil timekeeping be?

Rob Seaman seaman at noao.edu
Wed Feb 13 21:52:28 EST 2008



> Discussing leap seconds with you is like discussing papal

> infalibility with a catholic priest.


The good fathers at Villanova might balk at characterizing me so. I
won't respond to the rest of your commentary, other than to point out
that "infalibility" is misspelled :-)

My general intent is to stay on message whatever the context. I could
certainly wish my rhetorical skills were less abrasive, thus more
persuasive.


> What are your comments to my proposal to announce leap seconds 10

> years in advance?


It would require more detail to amount to a proposal...


> Could you live with that?


...and a viable process for adopting any sort of proposal requires
more extensive vetting :-)

That said, I perceive no issues with extending the leap second
schedule - per se. The proposal would need to delve into the
magnitude of DUT1. While such a possibility was mentioned in the
original GPS World piece, the intent has clearly always been to
eliminate leap seconds entirely.

My own ancient precis for a proposal (http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/
leap) also focuses on tweaking the scheduling algorithm and I think
there are many possibilities there. It is not the astronomers who
have been unwilling to entertain alternative concepts of civil
timekeeping.

Rob Seaman
NOAO



More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list