[LEAPSECS] presentations from AAS Future of Time sessions

[Steve Allen]

On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +0000, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:

> Poul-Henning Kamp said:

> > What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove

> > leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun"

> > up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they

> > see fit.

>

> Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the one that seems to me

> to be the most practical.


This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC.  In particular,
can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
the legal definition of the word "day" in every country which has
adopted UTC as its time scale?  Will the delegates from other nations
simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the
military needs of the USA?  Will the ITU-R even dare to allow such a
risky vote that might result in their new recommendation being
disregarded by countries which want to preserve the meaning of "day"?
Or can the delegates only be persuaded to vote if the new TF.460
clearly explains the tradeoffs and chooses a new name?

--
Steve Allen                 <sla at ucolick.org>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB   Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99855
1156 High Street            Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m