Rob Seaman seaman at noao.edu
Fri Sep 3 17:27:49 EDT 2010

On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:19 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> I think that this is why the leap second proposals say they won't

> disseminate DUT1 anymore. All they really mean by that, I think, is

> that we'll measure it, we'll pubish it, but the time broadcasts will

> reset it to '0' and users should note that it isn't available that way

> anymore.

There are no "leap second proposals" - plural - there's just the insipid TF.460 redefinition being maneuvered behind closed doors through the byzantine ITU bureaucracy.

If both supporters and conscientious objectors are using words like "I think" it means the proposal isn't clear in its intent. Why is that?

Either the legalistic document - or some publicly accessible gloss on same - should be clear enough to understand the issues and intent of the changes - that is, should comprise a coherent systems engineering plan.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list