[LEAPSECS] What's the point?

[Rob Seaman]

Warner Losh replies:


>> A) It would be taking what is currently a doubly indirect pointer and removing the layer in the middle.  Dereferencing (converting to UTC) would no longer return a timescale stationary with respect to the synodic day.

> 

> I don't see why it wouldn't.  If you really need synodic day, DUT1 tables would give that.


Um.  You may or may not agree that it is necessary for UTC to remain stationary with the synodic day, but requiring DUT1 tables is certainly an admission that this would indeed no longer be the case.


>> B) Detailed expert knowledge would become necessary to answer even simple questions of comparing both clock intervals and Earth orientation questions either in a single place or across epochs and locations.

> 

> We have that today.


We have a soupçon of the zest of complex design.  The kaleidoscopic timezone notion is the Deepwater Horizon of meddling with timezones.


> Even the olson database won't give you all the answers, but it will give you many of them.


But you guys continue to reject Steve Allen's zoneinfo option...which represents a system layered on a relatively static timezone DB.  Punting to local governments is vastly more complex.


>> C) As pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, these kaleidoscopic timezones would accelerate quadratically just like leap seconds.

> 

> This problem isn't solved by this method either.  True.


More consensus!

Rob