I think we're moving off-topic here. My main concern is that a valuable community leader, like Carl Warner, was not renewed. Carl maintains VFUG which, last I saw, has about 30,000 subscribers. Carl himself is not a particularly prolific poster but neither is Michel so what is the standard? I dunno. I know what it was when I was involved in the MVP selections for a few years at MS and I have a good idea what Ken's were when I was still there but no longer actively vetting (although advising....say "thanks!" Craig Boyd (lol))

I can't go into details at this time but rest assured powerful influences are at work to try to get some of this reversed. The complaints have gone very, very high up.

>>>>>Well, I'm glad for you but not too happy about Carl Warner and VFUG. He was axed. Doesn't seem right that any of the community leaders should be screwed.
>>>>
>>>>It is my understanding that many have not been renewed and I believe they should have been. I really do not know the specific details in regards to each of those persons and how the revision process was done. But, I guess one could still send some recommendations to the MVP team and request additional verifications.
>>>
>>>
>>>When you axe people from this site, you don't give them the courtesy of advanced warning, no reason and a resolute stance on what is admin behind the scenes is nobody's business. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you want answers from MS's admin behind the scenes. You can't have it both ways. What goes around comes around.
>>
>>Michel has never pretended this site is democratic, or that his admin processes are open and transparent. He doesn't hand out awards that he hopes become internationally recognized as a standard of excellence.
>>
>>OTOH the value of an MS MVP is proportional to the openness of its awarding process. If it's not open, hey, the MVP program is obviously a bunch of MS-cliquers and brown-nosers patting each other on the back, right?
>>
>>So because the expectations aren't the same, Michel CAN have it both ways.
>
>I disagree. MSFT has never (to my knowledge) publicly acknowledged how MVPs are chosen. We *know* that typically an existing MVP will recommend someone for the award and then it is backed up with online support, papers, books, or speaking engagements. However, it has never been MSFT's policy to publicly list why someone received the MVP award. If they have, can you point me to the location? I've never seen it. As far as I know, it is a closed process just like Michel's is.
>
>I do find it interesting that Michel does not even inform the person banned from the UT why they were banned and will even go so far as to threaten legal ramifications if the banned individual even attempts to communicate with him, yet, he expects a response from MSFT on why he was not renewed if indeed he was not. He practices one thing but expects another. That's ironic. I do not fault him for asking for an explanation or clarification though. Anyone would.
>
>I agree with John on this one.