It has been about six years since the notion of abandoning leap seconds became a public issue (see, for instance, http:// catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.71.html#subj14.1). With the milestone looming next month of the ITU working party vote, the question arises of what comes next.
If the proposal is voted down, one may presume that its sponsors won't simply abandon their goal - whereas if the proposal passes this first hurdle, one may imagine other hurdles await. I gather there was quite a response to the proposal during the comment period (as unadvertised as it was). Perhaps the likeliest result is that the proposal is simply withdrawn to be reworked and reconsidered in the future. Would folks - perhaps some with personal knowledge - like to speculate on the future moves in this chess match? Perhaps the discussion might be broadened to be more inclusive? Perhaps its goals might be refocused onto the technical and logistical requirements for improving the system(s) for the transport of time signals of all types? If we were to focus on how best to propagate interval time (GPS, TAI and their derivatives) as well as time-of-day (UTC, UT1 and derivatives), we might find that the fundamental requirements for timekeeping flow naturally down to the derived requirements for civil timekeeping. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory
