[LEAPSECS] A leap second proposal to consider -- LSEM

[Rob Seaman]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:


> What would happen if instead of getting rid of leap seconds

> we had *more* of them? So many more that all software just

> had to implement them. And so often that products would

> have a plenty of chances to be "leap second qualified" before

> release; tested with both positive and negative leap seconds.


By all means - something to consider...

...which we've done before, e.g., in August 2003:

	http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/navyls/0197.html

Variations of positive/negative scheduling came up at other points, but I haven't figured out how to search the zombie Navy archives.

The fundamental idea, well stated in Tom's message, is to embrace the requirement rather than run from it.  This is good advice when architecting anything.

Rob