Rob,
I started replying to your email point for point, but I gave up.
I'll remind you that I am perfectly happy if the current proposal
in front of WP7A goes straight through and the next leap second is
the last I ever see.
Yet, I have spent time and emails on you this week, to try to see
if we could find a workable compromise.
I have tried to reach out to you, tried to offer various models
which might work for both you and me, but all I get back is "they'll
just ignore us", "we can't do it", "we don't know if this will work"
etc etc.
I'm still willing to work for a useful compromise, but it will only
happen if other people, like you, join in and support whatever
result we come up with.
That means taking a constructive part in the process, rather than
just going "it'll all end in tears" all the time.
Yes, it'll take a bit of work. We have to insist to get a fair
hearing WP7A. We may have to find a sponsor for some money.
None of that is beyond or below me, but it seems to be beyond you ?
Here is a concrete proposal:
A.
Until 2009-12-15 we use the current rules, after
that date we use the rules in section B (below)
B.
1. leapseconds can be inserted at the end of any month.
2. All leap-seconds for the period [2009-12-15 ... 2060-12-15]
must be announced before 2009-05-15.
3. All leap-seconds for after 2060-12-15 must be announced
50 years before it is scheduled to happen.
4. There is no upper bound on DUT1. DUT1 depends only on
the quality of the model(s) used to schedule leapseconds.
5. Timeservices and GNSS systems should broadcast DUT1.
Is there anything in this which is unclear to you ?
Will you work actively to get such a proposal in front of WP7A
and work to get it adopted instead of the current proposal ?
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 10:36:25 PDT