"Clive D.W. Feather" writes: > Harlan Stenn said: >> 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. > > The problem is that some people use UTC to mean "TAI plus adjustments > to keep it less than a second from UT1" while other people use UTC to > mean "the basis of legal time here". For the second set, using a new > name for a different concept doesn't help.
That some people are mis-using a name is not the fault of the name. > There are good reasons for wanting legal time to be TAI+<n>+<local > offset>, where <n> is a constant (somewhere around 35?) that never > changes in the future and <local offset> is chosen by the relevant > lawmakers and is normally a multiple of 15 minutes. If you accept that > these reasons override those for keeping leap seconds, then a name > change won't make it easy. UTC has leapseconds, and people who are using UTC for its intended purpose are happy. If there are people who want a similar timescale that does not use leapseconds, that's great, and come up with a different name for this timescale that does not use leapseconds. H _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs