[LEAPSECS] How good could civil timekeeping be?
seaman at noao.edu
Wed Feb 13 21:52:28 EST 2008
> Discussing leap seconds with you is like discussing papal
> infalibility with a catholic priest.
The good fathers at Villanova might balk at characterizing me so. I
won't respond to the rest of your commentary, other than to point out
that "infalibility" is misspelled :-)
My general intent is to stay on message whatever the context. I could
certainly wish my rhetorical skills were less abrasive, thus more
> What are your comments to my proposal to announce leap seconds 10
> years in advance?
It would require more detail to amount to a proposal...
> Could you live with that?
...and a viable process for adopting any sort of proposal requires
more extensive vetting :-)
That said, I perceive no issues with extending the leap second
schedule - per se. The proposal would need to delve into the
magnitude of DUT1. While such a possibility was mentioned in the
original GPS World piece, the intent has clearly always been to
eliminate leap seconds entirely.
My own ancient precis for a proposal (http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/
leap) also focuses on tweaking the scheduling algorithm and I think
there are many possibilities there. It is not the astronomers who
have been unwilling to entertain alternative concepts of civil
More information about the LEAPSECS