[LEAPSECS] How good could civil timekeeping be?

Rob Seaman 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

Rob Seaman

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list