[LEAPSECS] Automation

[Rob Seaman]

M. Warner Losh wrote:


> If we must have leapseconds, we must put them on a better schedule  

> than 'we'll tell you 6 months in advance'.

>

> If one accepts > .9s tolerance, we can make our best guess now for  

> the next 10 years and be very likely to be very close.  We'd likely  

> know after 5 years how well we've done.  Having leap seconds on a  

> predictable schedule out many years would solve many of the  

> engineering problems that are faced today.


Let's give it a try.  The online cache of Bulletin A at IERS only goes  
back to 2005.  Presumably the earlier ones are stashed somewhere.  Can  
we drill back a decade or two and see how well Bulletin B can be  
recovered in a longitudinal study?

Whether or not leap seconds survive the next decade, we can always  
benefit from improving their handling in the interim.  This may even  
make the whole thing moot.

Rob