George

You need to distinguish between "deserving the award" and "value of the award". You seem focused on the former while I'm focused on the latter. Perhaps an example would make my point clearer.

When I was at school (all those years ago), doing well in national exams to achieve a Bursary or Scholarship was our goal. Achieving that was taken as a sign that one could string together sentences and work hard, allowing fast-track entree to specialist university degrees.

In the 1990s, the system changed. Much more was dependent on "term work" assessed by schools rather than national exams.

This resulted in anomalies where one bursary-holder might be smart and articulate while another was Head Prefect and had allowances made. And getting a "B" Bursary at school A might be a far greater achievement than getting an "A" Bursary at school X.

Result: achieving a Bursary or Scholarship means little any more- no direct entry to university, no cues for employers.

My "point" is that the benefit of an award depends on the transparency and robustness of achievement criteria.

So: Of course I agree that MS MVP is a MS award. It is for MS to give out MVP awards just as it is for schools to arrange Bursaries for students, those are the rules. But it is also to the considerable benefit of recipients *and those to whom they pitch for work* that selection is transparent so that the value of the award is maximised. As I said, there was a time when being a MVP seemed to depend on comradery rather than technical contribution. As I said, MS has done really well in this area, bravo to them. As I also said, distinguishing "contributors" from "co-operators" would continue to maximise the value of the award for contributors.

As I noted, today's recipients are mostly "obviously" because of contributions, I'm sure that most here would applaud them. MF falls into that group, not sure why you singled him out.

Regards

JR