[LEAPSECS] Changing the name of UTC

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
In message <E517A9AF6A49AA479D731EC5F891C0BB0109156265 at echo.usno.navy.mil>, "Ma
tsakis, Demetrios" writes:

>I'd like to take the opportunity to ask this crowd what they think
>of the statements below:
>
>1. Those who are in favor of UTC redefinition currently oppose the
>name change (emphasis on currently)
>
>2. Those who are against UTC redefinition insist that the name
>should be changed.
>
>3. There is no one who says he/she would support UTC redefinition,
>but ONLY IF the name is also changed.

The fact that almost all timescales have been revised at one point
or another is, as you point out, clear evidence that there is no
scientific need or technical requirement why UTC cannot be changed
once more and still keep its name.

So why does the name change argument even come up ?

The #1 crowd wants to get rid of leap seconds, and they want to do
it with the minimum effort and disturbance.  In particular, they
do not want to reopen all the regulations about planes, trains and
telephones in order to textprocess "UTC" into "${NEW_UTC_NAME}".

It can certainly be argued that this is "sneaky" in the sense that
for instance IATA, ICAO, IAEA and so on should make informed
decisions about which timescales they use.

On the other hand, it can likewise be argued that it is equally
"sneaky" to stick leap-seconds in without providing a practically
usable dissemination of the fact beforehand.

The #2 crowd wants to keep leap seconds, and have spotted the
name-change as a potential "poison-pill tactic", because it would
force the #1 crowd to do all that tedious and pointless editorial
work in all those documents mentioning "UTC"

I'm sure they've patted themselves on the back at this piece of
political gamesmanship, but I don't think it would ever work.

They are up against a lot of very seasoned public servants, and if
there is anything public servants have a sixth sense for, it would
be paperwork.

However, UTC is a UN owned timescale, so a trivial
UN resolution amounting to:

	"After YYYY-MM-DD, for "UTC" read ${NEW_UTC_NAME}"

would clear the hurdle they erected in one line.

So even if the #2 crowd wins their name-change battle, they
would still loose the war.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.