On Wed 2005-02-23T23:02:14 -0800, Steve Allen hath writ: > [ the New South Wales bill ] > defines UTC as being determined by the BIPM.
> So it remains unclear who ultimately controls the fate of civil time > in New South Wales. There is sociology behind this statement. W. Lewandowski is Principal Physiscist at the BIPM time lab. He often chairs sessions at the various precise time conferences, and he did so at CGSIC last September. His introductory Powerpoint presentation is online as presentation number 60 at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/44thmeeting/44th_CGSIC_agenda.htm In his slides 6 and 7 he indicates that the transition to uniform time would follow the recommendations of the Torino conference; i.e., a uniform time scale gets a new name. It is not clear that this dare be interpreted as a position statement by the BIPM, nor whether it represents a stance in opposition to the draft documents that the ITU-R has been circulating regarding its preferred re-definition of UTC. I suppose that there are individuals on both sides of the leaps-in-UTC issue at the BIPM, the IERS, and the ITU-R. That was the case at the BIH where the Stoykos championed earth rotation time while Guinot championed atomic time. The Stoykos died first, and with the demise of the BIH they have largely been omitted from the history of time keeping. That recalls the tag line in the posting on POSIX time: http://www.opengroup.org/platform/single_unix_specification/show_mail.tpl?source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=7777 Time folk take their time, they do. Bet they have their time wars too, but they bury their dead in private. In the end the resolution of the leap second issue for civil time may also become a game of who dies first. -- Steve Allen UCO/Lick Observatory Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: +1 831 459 3046 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla PGP: 1024/E46978C5 F6 78 D1 10 62 94 8F 2E 49 89 0E FE 26 B4 14 93
