I'm not sure I like the tone of your response. You are trying to impose standards on the selection process as one would expect for a public award such as the Nobel but this is a private award based on private standards.

I'm not sure I like your imposition of a straw-man position. ;-) I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm making an observation.

The issue is that the award seems to anoint experts, not just give a reward. Vendors are not allowed to decide who the experts will be in other industries or professions, especially if the expertise is for contributions to one's peers. Vendors may fund such an award but running it secretly is difficult to imagine.

Of course MS is a special case because its development tools are themselves an industry. Few other industries are so dominated by one player. OK.

Of course I agree that comparing a vendor award to the Nobel Prize would be absurd.

It's to be expected that not only recipients help communities as experts but that they also contribute to the future direction of MS.

I'm sure you're correct- but what does that have to do with anointing of experts? As other posters have observed, if MS simply appointed advisors or gave out perks to people it thought were doing well, who could object? Please don't try to pretend that I would.

Perhaps MS is grappling with the difficulty of one award used to reward as well as anointing experts. Sometimes the two goals do not gel. For example, while I fully agree that running a technical BBS is worth of reward and recognition, what does it have to do with being an expert?

As I said earlier, I think MS is doing a good job if it visibly defrocks people whose contribution slips. That wasn't always the case. You know this is true. IMHO current processes seem better, though at least one defrocked MVP is wondering what standard she needs to meet to be reinstated.