"Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: > -------- > In message <20141030143121.ga20...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes: > > >I wonder if the ITU-R process can go to its completion without > >introducing any document which points out that to omit leap seconds > >from a time scale called UTC is to redefine the word "day". > > You mean the same way leapseconds redefine "minute" by making > them have the counter intuitive numbers of seconds ?
I don't see this as the same thing. If this argument is valid then "leap years" are also problematic. I'm still thinking the answer is "leave existing 'names' alone - if you want TAI use TAI. If you want UTC, use UTC. If you want something new, call it something new." If people are using a defined name for a defined purpose and it works for them, leave it alone. If people are using a defined name for a defined purpose and it does not work for them, this group needs to come up with a new name for the thing they think will solve their problems. -- Harlan Stenn <st...@ntp.org> http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
