I don't know if it makes a difference, but doctors also need to follow AMA (here in US) standards and have a license. Peer recognition has long been an established practice in the medical field. I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinions that the MVP process needs to be more open. I would like to see a more open process. But at the same time, I support Microsoft's right to run the program how they want.

My contributions:
- Helped organize and run Utah Code Camp
- Spoke at Code Camps in Utah, Boise, and Phoenix
- Spoke at several Utah .NET user groups
- Spoke at German VFP DevCon
- Wrote white papers and posted on my web site
- Forum support includes UT, Tek-Tips, FoxForum, newsgroups, and Microsoft forums

My community time is split between VFP and .NET. It was Microsoft's decision to award me in VFP.

>Yes, I referred to it as a MS award. As I (and other posters) keep saying, nobody objects if MS decides to reward people or appoint them as advisors. However, as I also keep saying, it is unusual in any industry for a vendor to decide who the experts are- even in use of the vendor's own tools.
>
>Example: hip prostheses are manufactured by a handful of large companies. But those companies do not choose who the experts are at using their equipment. Professionals who decide to use the vendor's equipment and want to be recognized as experts need to produce statistics and stand forth in excellence before their peers. The vendor may choose to sponsor and assist this process but certainly they could not possibly expect to control it or run a secret selection process.
>
>If you feel inclined to come back yet again to tell me it is a MS award not an industry award, meaning you have again ignored the actual point I am raising, then please spare us both. Instead you might usefully advise me where I can find your contributions to VFP that have allowed you to display excellence again this year- assuming you're still a MVP, of course.