In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Greg Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: >> A notable difference between these versions and previous ones is
: >> that the CGPM's UTC shall be interpreted by the Secretary of the Navy
: >> as well as NIST.
: >
: > So the final determination of the policy issue (yea or nay on leap
: > seconds) shall be whether the US military industrial complex believes
: > there are more risks in continuing leap seconds (tested over 35 years)
: > or in a boundless DUT1 (never tested, heretofore negligible for many
: > applications).
:
: No, I expect that means that Ken Johnston of the US Naval Observatory
: will make the call. Or more precisely Dennis McCarthy.
I gather the efforts are a mere technical correction. I wonder if
there will be a good time to ask at the Time and Frequency Metrology
Seminar at NIST this week :-)
Warner
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
