On 2011-09-24, at 19:52, Ian Batten wrote: > Had UTC remained the same, inviolate, since inception the argument that it > should be left alone would have more weight; given it's changed both its rate > and its offset mechanisms relative to TAI twice since its inception, the "you > shouldn't change running standards" argument has already been lost.
Not at all. On the table is the decoupling of UTC from UT, not a revision of the mechanism through which UTC follows UT. Was this in any way unclear to you? It's pretty much the central issue. N _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
