> That's disconcerting. Brooks,
Nice that the list has come back to life. Looking back on your original question about UTC documentation, you never mentioned what your actual application is. I think it would be helpful if you could state what your problem or your goal is. There are a lot of ways to handle UTC. In some respects it's easier than the Gregorian calendar. > 6. Rapid UTC (F. Arias, A. Harmegnies, G. Panfilo, G. Petit, L. > Tisserand) describes an effort to improve UTC, so maybe there's work > going on to help inform the debate further. Rapid UTC is not an issue this list needs to worry about. Essentially it just modernizes the method by which the various UTC(k) labs steer their local or national timescales (at the nanosecond level), a reduction from one month to under a week. > 7. New proposed definition of UTC (F. Arias, W. Lewandowski) states the > ''It was decided to postpone the decision until the World > Radiocommunication Conference 2015" . There, at least, are two names > officially related to the debate. > > Are those relevant? Is there communication with any of these people? Many of us know all those involved. It's a small world and everyone is trying to be helpful. /tvb _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
