[LEAPSECS] Affect of Y2K on programmers' attitude toward time documents

[Steve Allen]

On Fri 2010-12-10T14:03:08 -0500, Gerard Ashton hath writ:

> I suspect this rude awakening to the need

> to inspect primary sources may be adding to the present discontent with

> the lack of transparency of the ITU, and the inability to obtain what

> public documents they have for free or for reasonable prices.


The proprietary and uncommunicative nature of the ITU-R does not help,
but it is not the only problem.  Even open processes with
freely-available specifications are not a panacea.

Just today the IESG closed the CALSIFY WG.  This was created 5 years
ago in order to update RFC 2445.  One reason that we now have RFC 5545
is that despite the openly-published examples of how repeating
calendar events should have been represented, many vendors chose to
implement them using a different syntax.  Even now with RFC 5545 the
strategies for attaching media to calendar events differ from one
implementation to another.

Nothing works if people don't care to follow the standards.
That is the current situation with UTC and leap seconds.
That's why I think the ITU-R should abandon the name UTC if they
abandon the leap seconds.  The fact that things have changed
needs to be patently obvious before there is hope of motivation.

--
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