>Craig,
>
>The original group of VFP MVPs were all invited to Redmond for a meeting right after the award was given. At that meeting it was a clear consensus of that group that the MVP was an award received from Microsoft and had no value as a designator of one's knowledge or ability to answer questions other than the time period for which the award was given.
>
>The two concerns of that group were 1) if we used the MVP moniker we would be held to some higher standard than the rest of the world (we all did this becaused we enjoyed it and did not want extra pressure on us to perform.) and 2) we were concerned that it would somehow reduce the preceived value of what non-MVs had to say. So we, as a group, decided that we would not use any type of MVP moniker on our messages. Other product groups made other decisions.

I have heard this before. I also think that there are valid points of using the moniker. IMO each MVP should determine if they want to use the designation. My point was that here on the UT, all MVPs were forced to have a blue envelope whether they wanted one or not...just as now they are forced to not have a blue envelope. Personally, I think it is better to not have the blue envelope and leave it up to each MVP to put the designation in their signiture if they want it.

>
>Part of the trouble of recent times has been statements like "I expect more from an MVP" and other things like that. This is one of the reasons that the original group wanted no moniker identifying them as MVPs. I beleive that we all added it to our marketing materials and our resumes, but we didn't sign messages with MVP.

If this is something the group decides on now, then I have no problem following it. But I think there is credibility, especially after the recent MVP program problems at MS, to have MVP in the signiture.

>
>My opinion is that there should definitely be some mechanism for the UT to reward and recognize the consistently helpful and knowledgeable folks who contribute here. The first approach to this recognition was the free PUTM for MVPs. However, MVP is not a UT award it is a Micorsoft award. There can and will be places where the best interest of the UT is not the same as the best interest of MS.

I agree. When MS cancelled the program, Michel was one of the first to come forward and offer an alternative. There are many people here who give excellent advice and are not MVPs. I think some sort of UT recognition may be appropriate.

>
>When Microsoft left Compuserve the MVP status was in question for Compuserve. The avenue that CSi took was, IMO, a very good one. They started their own program to recognize those folks. They grandfathered in all of the then MVPs but they ran the program and they controlled who got the award and who got to keep it year to year. This may very well be the best option for the current situation. I think it is important to have an award for recognizing the prolific people. It not only encourages those folks to do more, but it is a goal for others to strive for. If the UT had its own program then it would be under the control of the UT.