[LEAPSECS] Schedule for success

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <EA6B0AE7-7375-4AB4-8F0C-005E5A5183AA at pipe.nl>, Nero Imhard writes:


>> That's how the ITU works.

>

>Is the ITU sacred in some way? Do these three letters imply that  

>common sense is suddenly irrelevant?


ITU is far from perfect, but it is what we have.


>>> I still don't get why you are insisting that UTC could be changed.

>>

>> It was changed in 1958 and 1972, I see nothing preventing it from

>> being changed in 2008, -9, -10 or any other year.

>

>Like the redefinition of the meter that you mention, these were not  

>such fundamental changes as the one now proposed.


I would argue that it is *exactly* like the meter redefinition:  We
move from using a random artifact of questionable stability to a
"pure" definition based on stable quantum-mechanical properties.


>And if I understand you well, you are saying that it is reasonable to  

>second-guess the motivation behind all these documents (and those we  

>haven't thought of) and conclude that it is safe to change a  

>fundamental property of UTC.


Having seen a fair number of these documents myself, and despite
9 years of "ankel-biting" having still not seen a single example
of a document where the absense of leap seconds would matter: yes.


>> Taking leap seconds out of UTC has a clear implementation plan, it

>> is one document that needs changed and ratified in a UN forum and

>> we are done with the problem.

>

>Keeping civil time in line with mean solar time is the key issue that  

>brought forth various schemes of rubber seconds, leap seconds, etc.  


No, keeping "scientific time" in line with mean solar time was the
issue, civil time had nothing to do with it.

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.