[LEAPSECS] operational time -- What's in a name?

[Steve Allen]

On Fri 2008-03-28T15:36:03 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:

> >Provided we get 10 years notice of leapseconds, that timescale

> >can contain leap seconds.  If we don't get at least 10 years notice,

> >it should not suffer from them.

>

> We would all be happy with all the notice we could get.

>

> This is an orthogonal concept to the best scheduling cadence for clock

> updates of whatever sort.  It doesn't take much insight into human

> nature to think that a monthly cadence will get more productive

> attention than a decadal or millennial cadence.


The "question" that the ITU-R has posed for itself to answer
since this process began is really more than one question.

Part of the beauty of distinguishing broadcast time signals from UTC,
while continuing both, is that it allows separate issues to be
addressed separately.

I allow that the broadcast time signals should be leap free, for there
are many operational systems which will benefit from that simplicity.

>From many quarters it seems that is a really big issue.


If we change the name of the broadcast signals then they can go
leap free on a very short time scale.  Right after the next leap
second would likely be a really good time.

The questions of how much notice is needed for a leap second, and how
close UTC has to stay to UT1 (or, given that UT1 isn't really mean
solar time anymore, whatever may be deemed better than UT1 for that
purpose) can then be answered separately, and more leisurely.  The
answers can even be changed without seriously affecting the uniformly
incrementing operational systems using the broadcast time scale.

--
Steve Allen                 <sla at ucolick.org>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99855
University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m