Post the proposal. This is an international standard, discussions should be public. "Key figures" should participate in this list, not run to ground.
"Perspective" is not a monopoly. Declaring that "we're going to break it now, but reserve the right to fix it later" is not a strong argument for immediate change. Rob -- On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: > On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Greg Hennessy wrote: > >>> To repeat myself, the punch line is this: NO ONE is advocating a perpetual >>> drift apart between atomic time and "universal" time (sundial time). >> >> What do you base this on, since I think the ITU proposal is exactly that? > > The proposal is to end the system of leap seconds as established in 1972. > > The proposal does nothing to tie the hands of any authority (e.g., ITU, CGPM) > for future changes that would synchronize atomic and solar time. > > My perspective comes from several private discussions with key figures > involved with the ITU study. > > - Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > LEAPSECS mailing list > LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
