Discussing leap seconds with you is like discussing papal infalibility with a catholic priest.
The good fathers at Villanova might balk at characterizing me so. I won't respond to the rest of your commentary, other than to point out that "infalibility" is misspelled :-)
My general intent is to stay on message whatever the context. I could certainly wish my rhetorical skills were less abrasive, thus more persuasive.
What are your comments to my proposal to announce leap seconds 10 years in advance?
It would require more detail to amount to a proposal...
Could you live with that?
...and a viable process for adopting any sort of proposal requires more extensive vetting :-)
That said, I perceive no issues with extending the leap second schedule - per se. The proposal would need to delve into the magnitude of DUT1. While such a possibility was mentioned in the original GPS World piece, the intent has clearly always been to eliminate leap seconds entirely.
My own ancient precis for a proposal (http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/ leap) also focuses on tweaking the scheduling algorithm and I think there are many possibilities there. It is not the astronomers who have been unwilling to entertain alternative concepts of civil timekeeping.
Rob Seaman NOAO _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
