I was surprised how my message has been misspelled by the cqcontest owner in his Tweet:
The pre-history of that Tweet:
We did few attempts to convince the cqcontest scoring service owner to restart score exchange as we did at Nov 2017-Apr 2018 ( see details at https://contestonlinescore.com/blog/real-score-cluster-update-cqcontest-net-left-the-cluster/) .
We have declined the above mentioned offer since it wasn’t even close to our scoring exchange collaboration policy:
- There should not be any preferences to one of scoreboards. All the scoreboards are equal in terms of user data exchange
- Any architecture needs to include the score distributor
Another one surprise for me personally was Dmitry’s point “In his opinion, the architecture offered by Russian side is too much difficult, and he do not understand the joined schema” ))) I’ve never told that. We can afford any modern IT technology. And honestly I’m really proud for any of our team member: Alex, Bruce and Randy. They all are real IT professionals and have proved that by implementing number of well-known online projects for HAM community.
We do our best to serve contest scoreboards. We constantly improve our service quality. We are always working hard to get score exchange between all the possible scoring servers into a cluster. As a result we have developed and successfully tested score distribution architecture involving score distributor network providing equal service to any scoring server.
And finally … Yes! We are open to share scores to any existing and new scoring services if they agree to work in equal and free of scores privatize attempts friendly network. Our main requirements are following to 2 basic rules:
- There should not be any preferences to one of scoreboards. All the scoreboards are equal in terms of user data exchange
- Any architecture needs to include the score distributor
73!