I'm not that far off your position, John.

I feel that it matters significantly that Ken has addressed the issue of visibility inside of MS.There actually have been reports here of MS reps. at conferences/seminars acknowledging VFP. This is HUGE compared to the old standard 'do we still sell that?'. I understand that effort is on-going. And it needs to be.

Of course it also matter what is done to promote VFP to the outside world too. And that's where I still allow time. Not an infinite period, though.

As regards the "summit", I can't comment at all. But I would say that at such an event I would expect a huge imbalance towards both MS and the MVP's product of association.
And let's face it... at best Mr. Green took input only from MVPs and what happened for/to VFP was largely determined by that group. Ken has widened the field to include the community at large. I guess it takes some time to disget/prioritize such wide input.

Also aiming for reality



>Jim..
>
>>
>I can say that *I* am ready to give Ken some more time yet because he has shown more progress in 5 months than I saw in the last 5 years.
>>
>
>Here are two questions to consider..
>
>Has Ken made more progress in making the VFP developer feel better?
>
>Or, has he made more progress with improving the stature of the product itself?
>
>I believe in being fair and giving people enough time. Whether Ken has had enough time or not is certainly open to debate. It seems clear that at least a few people believe Ken has not had enough time. Fine, for the moment, I will accept that. Those same people however, go on and say that Ken has done more for VFP in the past 5 months that has been done in the past 5 years. My question is what has he done? Short of going to user groups, having a more visible presence and communicating more directly with the community. In these areas - the warm fuzzy - tell people what they want to hear department, I concede that he has done more. Whether this has much value or not, I don't know.
>
>From the perspective of the outside looking in, it is my opinion that nothing has changed. When I say outside, I mean people from outside the group of people that use VFP. This includes people inside and outside of MS. FWIW, I have never thought or expected the perception that people have about VFP to change.
>
>So then - what is my issue???
>
>I guess my issue is two fold.
>
>First, I see a lot of people making statements, in the forums, in person, and in print. A considerably more rosy picture is being painted than what actually reflects reality. Whether the statements are about the MVP summit or what progress has actually been made, the message is exceedingly over-optimistic and does not reflect reality.
>
>I get the impression that a need to pitch the "party line" is prevalent. In other words, when objectivity should prevail, it does not.
>
>Second, I get PO'd when I see totally bogus answers to very legitimate questions. Whether it was about the OLE-DB Provider and the mythical Delphi Developer or why VFP is still often omitted from MS related materials, it is all total BS. If one juxtaposes this with the statements often made about how much progress has made, it becomes difficult to reconcile the two.
>
>I contend that in all material respects, not much has changed. With this in mind, I think it is necessary to analyze the alleged progress that has been made. If the progress is about making the VFP Developer feel better, I would agree he has made a lot of progress there. How much value this has is debateable. As far as elivating the stature of the VFP product itself, I don't think any progress has been made.
>
>Simply keeping it real...