>I wonder if some of you know about Cabrillo V3. It has been there on the
>site for more then one year now but there are no links to this page from
>anywhere. Therefore it is impossible to find.
>Here it is http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo_v3/
>As you see it is still in "Proposed" state. It has been like that since Feb
>2004 and I was hoping for it to be implemented for this year RDXC but it did
But there is no QSO template in the spec for RDXC, according to:
So even with v3.0 Cabrillo, how to do RDXC?
>I just wonder who has the power to turn "Proposed" into
>"Accepted"? If this person is Trey then can somebody get in touch with him
>please He is next to impossible to reach for me.
Before getting v3.0 beyond proposed, maybe v2.0 should concluded first?
v3.0 looks to be treating the symptom, as opposed to the disease, by
shifting determination of category from being explicitly stated to being
derived - see beginning of http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo_v3/musings.html
There would be no need to do this if there was more (perhaps the better
word to use would be: any) Cabrillo v2.0-compliance out there to begin with.
Unless there is more to come, v3.0 is likely to be even more of a mess, as
there are far fewer instances of "must" & "shall" as compared to v2.0. It is
unfortunate that it does not address any of the Cabrillo-like deviations -
although this is more to do with the passive & voluntary nature of the whole
thing (example: RSGB's IOTA contest has engaged Cabrillo properly, yet
RSGB's BERU contest has not).
But perhaps that has more to do with getting through to Trey, based on
CQ-Contest mailing list