On Fri 2010-12-10T14:03:08 -0500, Gerard Ashton hath writ: > I suspect this rude awakening to the need > to inspect primary sources may be adding to the present discontent with > the lack of transparency of the ITU, and the inability to obtain what > public documents they have for free or for reasonable prices.
The proprietary and uncommunicative nature of the ITU-R does not help, but it is not the only problem. Even open processes with freely-available specifications are not a panacea. Just today the IESG closed the CALSIFY WG. This was created 5 years ago in order to update RFC 2445. One reason that we now have RFC 5545 is that despite the openly-published examples of how repeating calendar events should have been represented, many vendors chose to implement them using a different syntax. Even now with RFC 5545 the strategies for attaching media to calendar events differ from one implementation to another. Nothing works if people don't care to follow the standards. That is the current situation with UTC and leap seconds. That's why I think the ITU-R should abandon the name UTC if they abandon the leap seconds. The fact that things have changed needs to be patently obvious before there is hope of motivation. -- Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 University of California Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
