>>>>>>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.
>
>Why should MS's process for awarding an MVP have *any* bearing on, or comparison to, Michel's process for banning a UT member? For all we (don't) know, Michel may have valid and compelling legal reasons for not publicizing his process. Considering the shenanigans of some banned members, this is plausible, if not probable.
>
>OTOH MS offers up the MVP program as something people should strive for. They want it to be a well-recognized award. My argument is, no-one can judge how valuable the award is unless its criteria are public. If not public, the value of the award is diminished. Therefore, Microsoft has a motive to keep its MVP selection criteria as transparent as possible.
>
>If you think these two processes must be the same, I completely disagree. You really are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Al,
Can you provide examples of shenanigans that Kevin pulled that might have any legal implications on UT?