UA9CDC continued from W9WI's post:
> > It might not be a bad idea for more contest sponsors to sit down and
> > specify a Cabrillo format for their contest, and then encourage software
> > writers to adhere to their specifications. IIRC the Wisconsin QSO Party
> > has done so.
>There is huge discussion going on on Russian contest reflector about
>Cabrillo now. If Cabrillo is the standard it has to be maintained by
>someone, That someone I think is Trey. That means that all the
>contest sponsors who wants their logs submitted in Cabrillo need to
>agree the output format with Trey. Well that is not easy. I have
>started more then one year ago on the request of Russian DX contest
>sponsors. We went as far as new proposed version of Cabrillo on
>Trey's web site and stuck there. I understand Trey has other duties
>to attend but we now have to think about setting our own standard.
>That is no good IMHO. Too many standards is worse then no standard at
>all. I suspect that other contest sponsors may ran into the same
The ultimate problem is that no one format will work for all events.
Cabrillo solves this by adding things to the specification - new summary
sheet fields, additional choices of what can be put in to summary
sheet fields & of course, different QSO templates.
Cabrillo is a great idea, but it has failed because of not abiding by the
get-it-into-the-specification bit. Folks just run with it as they please -
resulting in things like Jabarillo, Scandarillo & Frogrillo.
I do not see why it should be so difficult to get things enshrined into the
specification - which I hope is what Igor is meaning to say above.
Quite simply, if it is not to be found at http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/
then it is NOT Cabrillo.
If you run a contest & hear from WA7BNM, it does not mean that your
deviations of Cabrillo have been blessed by ARRL (one justification I
That an entry can get past a robot or work with somebody's analysis
tools likewise does not bless deviations of Cabrillo (these two are by
far the most popular justifications).
Now, if the deviations are the result of not being able to engage Trey,
this is most unfortunate. Cabrillo was commissioned by ARRL for
their contests & has since become something much bigger. If we all
work together, then everybody wins - sponsors, logging program
vendors, all the folks involved in log checking, participants, the
particular contest & RADIOSPORT IN GENERAL.
We still are no closer to understanding the problem with the Cabrillo
specification for IARU & WRTC 2006 - though IMHO we would be much
better off with addressing this bigger issue. As an example, the
specification contains the words "proposal" & is at version 2.0 - yet my
logging program seems to think it generates version 2.3... so it appears
versions of the specification >2.0 are a secret. How is the participant to
comply & in case of conflict, what to do?
Nothing more frustrating than a great idea gone wrong - even for
mainstream contests (based on the occasional post from N1ND &
K4JRB about what they have to deal with). It is even more frustrating
for non-mainstream events - especially when one has a go at working
a few of them from the DX-side & try to do the right thing by sending
in entries. I have several here still, as Cabrillo contains words like
"must" & "shall" & has absolutely nothing in it for a whole bunch of
events. How to comply? Why bother getting on next year if sending
in an entry has become so much more difficult thanks to "Cabrillo".
Without a clear specification, the non-mainstream events are making
things worse for themselves, too. Like I said above, this is detrimental
to radiosporting in general.
Perhaps Cabrillo should be renamed Anarquía.
Que lastima. ;^(
CQ-Contest mailing list