[LEAPSECS] Time-of-day

[Rob Seaman]

On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> I do not now and have never in the past suspected the ITU of competence.

> 

> But that does not prevent me, from supporting one of their proposals, if it pulls in the right direction.


By contrast I suspect the ITU is quite competent - in their "areas of expertise", to quote the noted system engineer John Hodgman.

The proposal they will be voting on in January, however, is doo-doo.  It doesn't even qualify for the name "proposal" since it lacks a shred of evidence of due diligence.


> It doesn't matter a hoot if ITU writes leap-hours into the proposal or not, because no regulation of theirs will be likely to survive for that long


Rather, it matters that they attempt to create a complete engineering plan.  Plans are not things you file away and ignore.  Plans can be evaluated to see if they meet the project requirements.  For instance, would leap-hours or the shifting timezone notion survive a coherent engineering process?

On the other hand, it is insipid to suggest that we can ignore the actual underlying issues because our grandchildren will sort it out.  They will be in no better circumstances than we are to do so - and our actions now may leave them in significantly worse circumstances.


> and even if it does, there is a clear cut process for changing it before it does any damage.


So which is it?  Is the ITU incompetent or is the ITU process "clear cut"?

Damage is avoided by engineers who coherently evaluate risks.  Hand-waving is not risk mitigation.


> That is unlikely to qualify as "proper systems engineering" to you.

> 

> Too bad.



Interesting attitude for someone employed in a technical profession.

Rob