Warner Losh wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 14:03, Rob Seaman wrote:
>> Tony Finch wrote:
>>
>>> the whole point of universal time is that it's the default timscale
>>> for civil use and only specialists should need anything else.
>> Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
>
> Yes. Along with the point that civil time keepers use whatever they are told
> to use... (eg, the shift from UT1 to UTC and China's very wide timezone).
Again - the point is to build consensus, not to divide and conquer.
An assertion that "civil time keepers use whatever they are told to use" is not
something I would back when engineering a system, no matter what my opinion on
other issues. It is a complex value judgement and likely irrelevant (and
probably wrong on its face in this instance). Perhaps you can reword it?
As far as "eg" examples, these also seem orthogonal to the consensus building
exercise. Examples are great, but have to be interpreted. I don't know that I
understand what you are trying to imply by "the shift from UT1 to UTC".
Whatever it is, I suspect it is on shaky ground historically. And while we've
discussed timezones any number of times over the years, we've often disagreed
on the interpretation of the issues involved. (Note I'm forgoing my usual
explication of my own position here - I think the consensus exercise is of
value.)
It appears that Warner does agree with Tony and me that:
"[T]he whole point of universal time is that it's the default timscale
for civil use and only specialists should need anything else."
Perhaps this can be split in two:
Universal Time is the default timescale for civil use.
Specialists may need other timescales.
That we each may have different ideas about the "meaning" of such assertions is
not pertinent to building a consensus on the ideas we do share.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
