In message <[email protected]>, Rob Seaman writes: >I wrote: > >>> The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term >>> future. > >Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > >> ITU has no such responsibility:
>1) An organization with a limited scope (telecommunications) should >not control a standard with a much broader scope (timekeeping). People should not kill, machines should not fail, intelligent discourse should not use should in passive form. 50 years ago, I might have agreed with you (NB: cheap claim, I'm not that old). But in the networked global village of this age, I do not: timekeeping is very much a telecoms issue. In fact, that is why we even debate leap seconds now: They are a bump in the digital road. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
