[LEAPSECS] The ends we seek

[Mark Calabretta]

On Thu 2012/01/19 20:54:52 -0800, "Tom Van Baak" wrote
in a message to: "Leap Second Discussion List" <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>


>Welcome back to the list. It's been a while.


I have to admit to lurking, though usually take shelter during
the cyclone season, except this season was too hard to ignore
for obvious reasons.


>Here's a chance for some creative input. If as you say UTC

>is not "discontinuous" what English word would you recommend

>be used to describe it? Hopefully some word that uniquely

>distinguishes it from the likes of UT1 and TAI?


In essence - "unpredictable", as in "the long-term
unpredictability of leap seconds creates problems".


>We've given this some thought. One problem is that many of

>the contributors of the list have taken a side and have been

>re-defining words to enhance their bargaining positions. This

>makes a writing a wiki difficult.


Thinking along the same lines as Werner, we should aim to
produce a list of options for delegates to the 2015 ITU RA to
consider as alternatives to the all-or-nothing approaches.  It
should be kept as concise as possible by making judicious use
of links to external sites containing reference material.
Excluding links, it should be readable in toto in less than an
hour.

Each option would include some background as appropriate, and
would have a list of arguments for and against.  The options
should start with those suggested in the original "GPS World"
article, with contributed additions.  Obviously the continue/
discontinue options would summarise many of the salient points
that have been discussed on the list to date.

Whether implemented as a wiki or not, it should be in html on
the web.  If not a wiki, then two (say) maintainers should
volunteer from each side with preference going to the more
prolific contributors - we all know who they are!  They would
be responsible for adding (and vetting) contributions submitted
openly on the leapsecs list.  Probably there should also be two
who mostly occupy the middle ground.  It is in each side's
interests to be as concise and to-the-point as possible, but
anyway limited to about 30min worth of reading (say 5000 words).

Regards, Mark