[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
seaman at noao.edu
Thu Sep 2 13:37:52 EDT 2010
Yes, your post got through.
On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
> Those that I have access to claim that we can estimate up to about four months in advance with quantified uncertainty.
Did you mean "four years" here? They appear to have been doing just fine with six months since the 1970s :-)
> would it help overcome some implementation issues if a well conceived warning cycle
> were implemented as far in advance as such estimates might permit.
Yes (as long as the lead time is years, not months).
"Well conceived" is the heart of the issue. The proposal in front of the ITU is poorly conceived on its face whatever one thinks of leap seconds. It cries out for coherent planning and transparency to stakeholders.
For just one instance, the proposal is not only to cease leap seconds, but to cease the reporting of DUT1, correct? In the event of the former, does not the latter gain much more importance? A well conceived proposal in whatever policy regime should address the full range of resulting issues.
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
More information about the LEAPSECS