>In that case I'd like to know where current MVPs > L < and YAG shone forth during the 1999-2000 year. It is a reasonable question since I have been most impressed by them in the past. Surely you see it is frustrating and counterproductive to see them awarded MVP for "contribution to on-line community" during that period when I am unable to find them anywhere I look.

FWIW, I agree with your sentiment, although I don't think that grilling Garrett will get you anywhere.

A while back, I took some flak on the private MVP board for asserting that the process is too conducive to 'lifetime membership', and that to my knowledge some of the current MVPs have not really even shown their face on line for quite some time now, yet they keep getting awarded year after year. Someone even expressed that consideration for renewal should be given to current MVPs that were not active in the last year just because they had a good excuse (like being too busy to contribute). This is completely ridiculous IMO.

I would have absolutely no problem with 'lifetime membership' except for a couple of things:

1. _Someone_ at MS stated once that there were too many VFP MVPs in proportion to the usership, and that was the reason why some individuals (no matter how qualified) would be passed up or have to wait. It totally steams me that someone who has busted their ass in the last year suffers because an inactive old-school mainstay is sitting in his seat.

2. If we throw away the above reason and accept everyone and keep all the veterans, it dilutes the meaning of the award.


Even though this last year was an improvement over previous years, there are still a few who, like you, I wonder where they've been.

>Of course MVP is MS's to award and if MS wants the process to be secret, it should say so rather than strenuously insisting that it is for "technically accurate contribution to on-line communities". Secrecy and inability to justify selection is not compatible with the assertion once it is published.
>
>JR