John,

I wish you would simply state your position publicly, Yes, or No, on the question: would you consider ... You're the lawyer, John. I said "consider". That's a pretty weak commitment we're asking from you, and it leaves plenty of room for qualifying it with, "Yes, but I think it's unnecessary." Just say you'll consider it, and you will have done a great service to Visual FoxPro. Or say No, perhaps because you are convinced that to even consider such a thing would be harmful. But to say nothing, what's the message there? You're so busy that you're going to start blasting us with a series of negative replies, but you haven't got the time to publicly acknowledge, "Yes, but you guys are probably wasting your time"? I assure you that having your name on the list would have more than a token effect, just as it would to have Erik's name, and those of a lot of you other outspoken chaps. In fact, I implore you to let me do you the service of putting your name on the list, under "Yes, but I think it's unnecessary and/or a waste of time", if that would help.

Your reassurances that things "will bear fruit" are small consolation to a skeptical community that has seen the same pattern of marketing neglect and half-hearted promotion for years. We don't need the inside scoop on Microsoft's grand strategy du jour to point out to them that there are clearly some fallacies at work here, and we'd respectfully like to suggest some things they can do immediately, at negligible expense, to address serious problems that seem to have escaped their scrutiny. We're not the enemy, we are their customers, and perhaps we might have something to say that it would be in our mutual benefit to discuss. Isn't it customary for companies to solicit input from their customers? Business and life don't have to be zero sum games: sometimes everybody wins, sometimes everybody loses.

Marketing and promotion are, by definition, publicly visible activities. It won't be a secret when Microsoft remedies the situation. We don't need to take anyone's word for it that things are going to be better, because we'll see it when it happens. Until then, we have every reason to be making it as obvious as possible to Microsoft that a serious problem still exists, how much it concerns us, and to offer some constructive suggestions on what to do about it. We're not creating or finding new problems here: this problem is as old as the hills. We need to communicate the message more effectively, to a higher level of management than we've ever reached before. What will speak most loudly to Microsoft's upper management will be the longest possible list of authenticatable names of their own customers. We can get to the details of the letter, among those who express a sincere interest in actively participating, but we don't want to be wasting people's time by going about this inefficiently. To spend your time discouraging people from merely indicating their support, withholding even the faintest public support yourself, while then proceeding to further argue about the merits of what we might or might not propose to say, would be a specious exercise.

Mike

>I'll jump on this one...
>
>Sending an open letter to MS on this topic is like sending a letter to the Toronto Sun that you think Paul Bernardo was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. At best, it is a token act.
>
>MS, Robert Green, Ricardo Wenger, Randy Brown, et al, know exactly what the sentiment of the community is. If they did not, I would have to conclude they have been brain dead for the past 5 years. Since I know the latter is not the case...< bg >, I can assure you that the folks at MS are listening.
>
>As far as not signing the letter, I am one of those that don't believe in token acts. If it is an act that won't count, count me out. The esteemed people you make reference to contribute at levels that you don't see on a day to day basis. They/We/I do things that count such as providing input on suggested strategic areas of focus. Signing a letter is at best a symobolic act. My appologies if I decide to concentrate on areas that will actually bear fruit...
>
>Just because you are not privy to all that goes on does not mean that the "esteemed" favor the status quo. Those that do things have no duty to clue you in and you don't have the perogative of needing to be informed.
>
>You can be sure that folks at MS lurk here, the wiki, foxforumm, etc. They see the ideas - for product improvements, marketing, etc. There has always been a place to make your suggestions known: foxwish@microsoft.com.
>
>My suggestion to the folks here - keep doing what you are doing. Robert has already engaged a bunch of people in productive dicussions. That will bear fruit. Wasting time on a token letter will not. Futher, don't sweat the fact that some noteables have not signed on. This is hardly a new thing. If you recall, during the whole VFPDA episode, no noteables where there either..
>
>Relax Jim. There will be good things happening. There is no need to create and/or find new problems...
>
>< JVP >
>
>
>
>>Hi Michael,
>>
>>I just reviewed the vote list. I noticed, sadly, that none of the 'esteemed' have voted (not that those who have voted aren't valuable, but you know what/who I mean).
>>
>>I guess that they are generally satisfied with the status quo. It gets me to wondering WHY that would be.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>JimN
>>
>>>Oops - let me correct that typo:
>>>
>>>The thing that's most amazing to me is how MANY of the people who ARE active in UT, wiki, and usenet have been slow to jump on the bandwagon.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>> (snip)