Re: [LEAPSECS] building consensus

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_NOAO.EDU>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 07:11:20 -0700

Zefram wrote:

> I've been reading the list archives.

What a novel idea!

> Parts of the discussion are rather repetetive.

A droll understatement.

Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes"
and "leap second no", the reality is that the folks pushing the "leap
second no" position have never engaged with this list. There are
several doughty people here who happen to have that opinion, but they
abide with us mortals outside the time lords' hushed inner sanctum.

> I think the search space could be narrowed quite a bit if the
> list produced a canonical statement of consensus, listing facts on
> which
> there is no dispute.

Suggest such an activity needs a more measured beginning. You've
dived in with dozens of assertions. Also suggest that the assertions
need to be much more carefully nuanced. Both sides (again, I'll
emphasize that this is a simplified view) are just a tetch sensitive
to unintended implications.

So, we should start with some unassailable shared consensus, like:
"Time happens!" (A physicist might challenge even that... :-)

John Cowan says:

>> New applications need a more sophisticated understanding of time than
>> is currently standard practice.
>>
>
> Some do, some don't, some couldn't care less.

Say rather that our shared understanding of time must become more
sophisticated. Certainly, some applications - even some time
applications - require more or less detailed timekeeping models.

Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 07:11:49 PDT