Ian Batten igb at batten.eu.org
Mon Jan 16 15:54:30 EST 2012

On 16 Jan 2012, at 2038, Nero Imhard wrote:


> On 2012-01-16, at 21:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>> It would require a lot of editorial work in a LOT of international documents


> So what's new? Doing things right is always harder.

> Using "it's too hard" as an argument is a copout.

> But at least you are saying it aloud. ITU isn't.

I''m not sure how well the argument works, though. Firstly, UTC has already been redefined, so pre-1972 and post-1972 UTC are different in rate. Secondly, even if you ignore that, UTC will remain a timescale with a rate equal to TAI, to which seconds are added and subtracted according to bulletins announced by the IERS, keeping UTC aligned to UT with a difference of DUT1. It's just that DUT1 will be larger, and the bulletin will never be published. However, changing back to "old" UTC would be trivial at any point in the next few hundred years: there would be a string of leap seconds every month until the leap seconds that had not been announced when they "should" have been have been caught up.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list