[LEAPSECS] USWP7A docs for 2013 September meetings

[Redman, Russell]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com 

> [mailto:leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Steve Allen

> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:36 PM

> To: Leap Second Discussion List

> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] USWP7A docs for 2013 September meetings

> 

...

> > You can lobby your own countrys ITU-R delegation.  It may 

> be a bit tricky

> > to locate who that might be but that's technically how your voice is

> > to be heard.

> 

> That should be easy.  Look at time mark 3:00 in

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-2UqYW9SEs

> and there you will see Russel Redman at the 2012 RA meeting.


Yes, BUT....

I have not made much noise about this, but due to a budget shortfall at the NRC and the approching withdrawl of Canadian participation in the JCMT (the telecope with which I am most closely associated), I will be retiring at the end of August. Note that this is before the next meeting of WP7A in September.

I have explored the possibility that I could still participate in WP7A through Industry Canada, the ministry within the Canadian federal government that is the actual Canadian member in ITU-R, but by now it is exteremely unlikely that they will be able to provide any form of support. On the contrary, the number of Canadian delegates to SG7 is likely to reduced.  Since Canada had not previously sent delgates to WP7A before I volunteered, it is likely that we will again have no representation at that meeting.

As you will guess, I find this disappointing. I found the work stimulating and felt I was making a real contribution.  Especially, I am not sure if anyone will now be able or willing to champion the ideas I have presented in absentia to WP7A last March and was intending to defend in September.

However, if you read the last bit of my paper to the "Requirements for UTC" meeting in May, I actually believe that the required line of progress mostly lies outside the ITU-R.  Until we can present the world with libraries capable of implementing UTC (and TAI???) through the system clocks, OS services and network distribution protocols correctly, there will always be a push to eliminate the leap second.  The development of those libraries will require work by real software developers who understand the issue.  I actually believe (foolish me) that very little new code needs to be written, but there are always very subtle issues that must be dealt with when changing a fundamental OS interface.  I cannot do that work myself, but would be willing to advise and encourage those who can.  

With a couple of examples of real solutions in hand, (mine is one approach, Steve has another) it will be practical to ask ITU-R to choose amongst real, costed solutions.  Until then, we are likely to have to face the same YES/NO question on the use of leap seconds, and the political deadlock at ITU-R is likely to continue.

Cheers,
Russell O. Redman