Re: Predictable Internet Time

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

You might consider that most governments have already agreed to
cooperate - by contributing their national clock info to TAI, accepting
the TAI-averaged result, and accepting the ITU's definition of UTC.

I see no good reason to create a new time reference that would still
ultimately need translation to TAI and UTC anyway, esp. given the
translation would be complex on the smear-day.

Joe


On 1/3/2017 11:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote
>
>     On 1/3/17 7:24 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>     Umm, my proposal was to ignore the opinion of the ITU in this
>>     matter as in everything else.
>
>     That doesn't work in all cases because there are often
>     applications that require that the clock time on a device not vary
>     from UTC by some set amount.  I think they're fixing for a big UTC
>     leap second shindig in the next few years, anyway.
>
>     Eliot
>
>
> ​My analysis of the politics of the situation is as follows
>
> * The decision makers are the governments, not the ITU
>
> *​ The governments will do whatever their banking and broadcast
> sectors tell them.
>
> * The banking and broadcast sections will do whatever Microsoft,
> Google, Apple, etc agree on provided that the transition is not going
> to be more of a problem than the status quo.
>
> ​* If ​there is a non ITU proposal on the table that threatens to
> replace ITU as the place where the decision is taken that stands a
> chance of being adopted, ITU will prefer to co-opt it rather than lose
> the appearance of control.
>
>
> We already have UT0, UT1 and UT2 and several other variants. The
> mapping from UT1 to UTC can be varied by committee.
>
>