Dave Finkleman wrote:
>> Those to whom it matters have to wake up and deal with the mitigation,
>> whatever the fate of the leap second. IMO leaving things as they are until
>> we collaboratively decide what things can be is the least risk.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Should a better proposal appear, I may switch my allegiance, but so far I
> have not even seen any other proposal forwarded.
Oh please. Rather you haven't seen any proposal at all worth the name. The
ITU-R draft is pathetic, failing to even begin to address the problem while
kicking the legs out from under the functioning system we already have.
We have, however, seen endless numbers of conceptual notions developed well
beyond the ITU's stunted imagination. Having arrived late on the scene, Dave
can be forgiven for not being familiar with the many hundreds of messages from
the current archive:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs
...or the almost two thousand messages from the original archive:
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/navyls
I continue to believe that stakeholders can arrive at a consensus. It is
awfully hard to make that happen, however, while having to perpetually swat
away the inadequate and insipid ITU position.
What are the use cases? What requirements do they reveal? What range of
possible solutions address those requirements? Applying system engineering
best practices should not be controversial.
On the other hand, ramming through the ITU draft over a clear lack of consensus
would be terrifically unprofessional, unwise and risky.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
