[LEAPSECS] MST Users: separate list or not?

Michael Sokolov msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG
Sat Aug 6 14:30:41 EDT 2011

Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> A separate list, where people who are interested can subscribe.

Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu> wrote:

> I agree.

OK, I accept this consensus then. However, I have a directed question
to TVB, the owner of the leapsecond.com and leapsecond.org domains: do
you think that the new Mean Solar Time Users list should be hosted under
one of those domains, or not? Here's the reason I ask:

Back in Oct 2010 there had been a thread on this list pondering the
possibility that if IERS were to stop sending leap second announcements,
someone else would pick up the tab. I had asked if TVB had considered
the possibility that his leapsecond.com domain would be just perfect for
that, and he replied:

> I have leapsecond.org just waiting for that...

So here's my question to TVB then: if you have already been considering
the possibility of using one of your leapsecond domains to distribute
unofficial / non-ITU / non-IERS leap second announcements, what about
extending that to include *all* forms of non-ITU mean solar time, be
they implemented via leaps, rubberization or foregoing all forms of
precision timekeeping altogether and using only sundials?

But thinking more about it, perhaps hosting the fully-generalized
Mean Solar Time Users mailing list on a site that has "leapsecond" in
its name would be sending the wrong message. We should emphasize Mean
Solar Time as a fundamental requirement, not leap seconds as one
possible implementation.

Rob Seaman:

> The suggested service on the other hand is a proposed solution to address

> whatever ad hoc mix of use cases and their derived requirements. A trade-off

> study would be needed to find out how it maps onto the civil timekeeping

> requirements.

But my intent for the MST Users list is to encourage discussion of *all*
possible schemes for satisfying the requirement of using Mean Solar Time
for civil timekeeping (which you agree *is* a requirement), not just my
particular UTR scheme.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list