The standard I am referring to is the standard the community holds the person that occupies that position to. I recall Robert's feet being held close to the fire on issues like this. IMO, 5 or 6 months is enough time to take care of some of these small issues.

Look - if he could get Ballmer to do a video, some of these other issues should pale in comparison with respeect to the difficulty.

I don't know if I could give a precise quantification of the "standard". I will tell you that I think the community is being a bit more forgiving of Ken. I understand the issues with giving somebody enough time to get up and running.

Whether Ken has had enough time is certainly open to debate. IMO, he has had enough time. Lets remember that he is not a new comer to the Fox team or MS for that matter.

I guess I am simply asking the tough question of what has Ken really done to improve things from the perspective of the outside world looking on VFP. I can tell you at the MVP summit, there was not a rush of people saying 'Wow, VFP is really cool. We know understand what we have been missing....". From what I saw, VFP got the same response from the outside world as it has received for the past 5 years - a resounding yawn. The only attention getting issue was the fact that most of the Fox MVP attendees were wearing the same T-shirts..< g >..

From what I saw, the general prevailing attitude toward VFP is the same as it has been. People talk about all of these great things. Where are they?

IMO, it smacks of scrapping the bottom of the barrel when people get excited when a VFP reference is made on the MS main page - which is there for the purpose of announcing the SP release. Where some get excited, I reply with -"yea... that is what MS is supposed to do...."

Ken has set a high bar of expectation. time will tell whether those expectations are fulfilled. In the meantime, Ken should be held to the same standard as Robert was. If he drops the ball - tell him. If he succeeds, congratulate him.


>On a more serious note, though, it would be enlightening if you would define the standard under which Mr. Green operated (and was constrained?).
>