Re: [LEAPSECS] Draft Questionnaire

From: Bill Klepczynski <wklepczy_at_COMCAST.NET>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:32:19 -0500

Demetrios,

I will be at USNO tomorrow (Wednesday) to return the WAAS Rx.

I have not really looked critically at your questionnaire but I did notice
that you did not seem to ask the question whether the person was in favor or
against a change in the LS. I may have missed it since it has been a long
day for me.

You ask a lot of detailed questions, so much detail that I wonder what kind
of response you will get. I know that I would be bothered by responding to
such a detailed questionnaire. It takes a lot of time and I wonder if the
person who should answer these questions will take the time to do so.

Be glad to talk with you tomorrow morning.

Regards,

Bill Klepczynski
**************************************
New e-mail address:
         wklepczy_at_comcast.net
**************************************
3530 South River terrace
Edgewater, MD 21037
410-798-8457 (Voice)
410-798-8567 (Facsimile)

----- Original Message -----
From: <matsakis.demetrios_at_USNO.NAVY.MIL>
To: <LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: [LEAPSECS] Draft Questionnaire


> As many of you know, I am the Chair of a Working Group (WG) on UTC for the
> International Union of Radio Scientists (URSI). Several years ago I
> distributed a questionnaire as the chair of a similar committee of URSI
> Commission J.
>
> My WG is considering sending the following questionnaire to URSI-members.
> The intent is to find out what the true costs would be if UTC is redefined
> so that there are no new leap seconds after N years, and what the costs
> would be of continuing with the same UTC definition we have now. I would
be
> interested in your comments, given the scope of the questionnaire and my
> limited charter.
>
> To my knowledge, very few of you are URSI members and therefore you will
not
> be asked this question by my WG. However I predict that any information
> along the lines of the questionnaire would be received with interest by
the
> points of contact in any of the other relevant international bodies to
which
> you may belong.
>
> Demetrios Matsakis
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ********
> 1. Name and Position
>
> 2. Contact information
>
> 3. URSI Commissions of which you are a member
>
> 4. If it were decided to change the definition of UTC so that no leap
> seconds would be inserted after a specified date, 5 years in the future,
> would any extra effort be required to adjust any system you work on?
>
> 5. If your answer to question 4 is yes, for each system affected
please
> provide the information in 5a through 5h. If these estimates are be
> difficult to formulate, you may wish to indicate the range of answers.
> Please feel free to contact a member of the Working Group to discuss the
> level of detail to provide so as to best help us represent your needs to
> URSI.
>
> a. Name of system
>
> b. Brief description of system
>
> c. Hours of extra labor that would be required and for what general
purpose,
> such as a software review.
>
> d. Extra equipment that must be purchased, and approximate cost to
> purchase
>
> e. Extra equipment that must be developed, and approximate cost.
>
> f. Installation cost of extra equipment
>
> g. Risks involved in modifying the system.
>
> h. Costs in terms of system performance or final product once the
> adjustments are correctly made
>
> 6. If the decision were made to insert no new leap seconds as of today,
> please indicate which of your responses to questions and 4 and 5 would be
> different.
>
> 7. Is there an implementation date that would significantly decrease the
> costs indicated in your response to question 5? If so, please provide the
> data and associated costs.
>
> 8. Please provide the approximate cost to your systems of
incorporating
> the next leap second, should one be called for in the year 2003.
>
> a. Hours of labor
> b. Equipment purchase
> c. Probability that leap second will not be correctly adjusted for
> d. Costs in terms of final product or system performance if the leap
> second is not correctly included
> e. Costs in terms of final product or system performance even if the
> leap second is correctly allowed for.
>
> 9. Please use this space to make any comments or provide any information
you
> feel appropriate.
>
> 10. It is possible that we would like to publicly identify your system(s)
as
> relevant to the decision. In that case, do we have your permission to
fully
> quote your reply?
Received on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 19:05:52 PST