[time-nuts] UTR timescale draft spec

[Michael Sokolov]

Magnus Danielson <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:

> > The present specification outlines a low cost method for obtaining a 
>
> "low cost method" is a potential goal, skip statement here.

IOW, you are suggesting that the line in question read
"The present specification outlines a method for obtaining a synthetic
timescale that ..."?

Having a low implementation cost is part of the raison-d'etre for the
UTR timescale and its specification, otherwise one could go straight for
the even more rebellious solution of ignoring all broadcast time
entirely and going back to the circa-1900 style of timekeeping.

However, I suppose that the words "low cost" do not need to appear in
that particular place in that sentence, especially since the title line
of the spec reads "Specification for a low cost synthetic timescale
approximating true Earth time".

> GMT is no longer used,

"GMT is no longer used" is a false predicate.  Although it may no longer
be used by the snobs in ITU/IAU/etc agencies, it is still very much used
by the rest of the world.  There exist plenty of legislation and
standards which call for GMT or generic mean solar time rather than UTC,
and I furthermore encourage this practice in Clause 5 of my
specification, because I consider it to be the right thing to do:
natural timescales are more reliable, enduring and corruption-proof than
anything man-made.

> but you may use it as a popular name reference 
> for what is now known as UT1 or UT2 time-scales.

But UT1 and UT2 are too specific and may be viewed as *possible
realisation options* for an even more abstract platonic ideal of GMT or
generic MST.  My goal here is the specify the abstract platonic ideal
which my timescale seeks to approximate.

> Skip "socially acceptable"

The intent here was to distinguish between good-faith realisations /
approximations of GMT (or MST in general) and bad-faith lip-service
claims to be a suitable replacement for GMT/MST, such as the entire
bait & switch scheme of the ITU.  But I do see now that substituting
the words "good-faith" for "socially acceptable" would be better.

> This has nothing to do with real numbers, so skip that reference. 
> Infact, what you tries to say is that you want a monotonic counting 
> mechanism, which timescales such as UTC does not provide upon leap seconds.

Well, not quite, there are two separate requirements in here:

1: having the timescale read as a real number
2: having that real number increase monotonously

For example, the common POSIX/NTP implementations of pseudo-UTC satisfy
1 but not 2.  OTOH, "true" UTC is monotonous, but is not a scalar.

However, I agree that my middle bullet point in that list needs
improvement.  I'll work on it some more.

> Shall I continue my review or have you got the criticism by now?

Before we continue, let's set up the Mean Solar Time Users mailing list,
one that is specifically intended to give a voice to all concerned
citizens of the world who have a need or desire to use MST independent
of whatever happens to UTC.  The people whose criticism would be most
valuable would be those who intend to actually *use* UTR or some other
non-UTC realisation of MST to satisfy their personal requirements for
MST, and I would like to seek the consensus of those users for any
actual changes to the spec in response to that criticism.

The MST Users mailing list should preferably be set up by someone other
than me.  (Also note the "independent of whatever happens to UTC"
clarification above - to me that rules out the existing leapsecs mailing
list, as their entire focus is about swaying the ITU UTC vote one way or
the other.)

MS