Are the people involved in that consensus engineering types? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <li...@packetflux.com> > To: "John Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> > Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:51:42 PM > Subject: Re: IERS ponders reverse leapsecond...
> Having at least a part of one foot in the global time and frequency > community I'd say that it seems that the consensus is building toward > eliminating leap seconds. > > There was a vote planned in 2012 to do so after a straw poll showed that > most member countries was in favor to do so. But in a typical committee > move they elected to study it more before making a decision. > > Hopefully there will be some movement next year when they're scheduled to > discuss it again. It's unfortunate that the first negative leap second > is likely to occur before then. > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 11:32 AM John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > >> >> > General press loses its *mind*: >> >> No more than usual. They're just rewriting this Facebook blog post: >> >> >> https://engineering.fb.com/2022/07/25/production-engineering/its-time-to-leave-the-leap-second-in-the-past/ >> >> It appears that Forrest Christian (List Account) <li...@packetflux.com> >> said: >> >Personally I'd like to see the UTC timescale be fixed to the TAI timescale >> >with a fixed offset determined by whatever the offset is when they make >> the >> >change. >> >> That's what Facebook, Google, and AWS want, too. Who knows, for once they >> might be right. >> -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
