Re: Generic QSO Window
Gary Hinson <Gary@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
This kind of issue comes up whenever there is a change to the ADIF spec, the DXCC list/rules etc., particularly when changes are disclosed or announced in advance of the due date – which is often not even agreed or specified until later in the process.
Some of us are excited by the forthcoming changes and keen to press ahead informally, even before the actual implementation date. An example right now is chasing new DXCC countries on 60m, even though 60m doesn’t formally count for DXCC (yet!). It’s an interesting challenge, anyway, and fun for those who enjoy that sort of thing. Another example was the work that went into getting Kosovo accepted onto the DXCC list, and (ahead of the date) planning DXpeditions there to put it on the air as soon as the list was updated.
Some (like you, I guess) would rather wait patiently for the due date, and for the systems to be updated for compliance with the changed rules.
Some are disappointed by or disagree with the proposed changes, feel things should be handled differently, and are generally conservative or risk-averse. A few may actively campaign against the changes and stir up dissent, for various reasons. An example here is the DXCC status of Scarborough Reef. There are personal, historical and political dimensions to it. The situation is more complicated than it may appear, hence the resolution is not entirely straightforward.
Most amateurs, I suspect, don’t particularly care either way. I doubt they are still reading this email!
Meanwhile, the poor software developers are pulled in all directions at once AND have to understand and interpret the changes, adapt the software and so forth in anticipation of the due date, while dealing with grief from most if not all the above groups. It’s a tough life!
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> On Behalf Of Panos
Sent: 28 July 2021 20:14
Subject: Re: [hamlogger] Generic QSO Window
Hi, just my opinion: critical files such adifmodes.txt etc. shouldn't be changeable by the users. I suppose this is a general rule among software developers. 73