While it is true that the CITEL position is officially to support the elimination of the leap second, it is wrong to assume, as the article implies, that all countries in the group share that position. I understand only 6 countries signed onto the CITEL position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard B. Langley E-mail: [email protected] | | Geodetic Research Laboratory Web: http://gge.unb.ca | | Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering Phone: +1 506 453-5142 | | University of New Brunswick Fax: +1 506 453-4943 | | Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 | | Fredericton? Where's that? See: http://www.fredericton.ca/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ From: LEAPSECS <[email protected]> on behalf of Steve Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:18 PM To: Leap Second Discussion List Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] And so it begins ... On Thu 2015-10-29T19:23:36 +0000, Richard Langley hath writ: > The article is wrong. Canada has not taken a position for (or against) doing > away with leap seconds. CITEL is against the leap second, and Canada is part of CITEL. So that's different than CEPT where UK and Russia prevented a regional position from being reached. -- Steve Allen <[email protected]> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
