>>>But I'd like to know of examples of MVPs who criticize MS. I realize that MS is not going to pick anyone that only criticizes them, but I also feel that part of the deal is that you can't be critical (even when it is deserved). As much as I value the contribution of some of these MVPs, that's one aspect of the program that I don't like.
>>
>>I assure you that plenty of MVP's criticize Microsoft. Often, though, it happens in private channels because one benefit of being an MVP is having access to ears at Microsoft.
>>
>>Nonetheless, some MVP's criticize Microsoft publicly as well. The best example is probably Karl Peterson, a VB MVP who has been extremely vocal about his unhappiness with the changes in VB.NET.
>
>Let's acknowledge that Karl Peterson is a good example of a "vocal critic" of MS. Since he's still a VB MVP this year there is a 'tolerance' indicated of such criticism on the part of MS (well, at least it's VB MVP selection apparatus).
>
>This begs the question: why is it that "our" MVPs feel the need to use private channels???? A corollary question is: why is it that "our" MVPs are so quick to jump to the promotion/defense of MS regarding bugs or other issues (even on issues not related to VFP)???
>
>It has been my observation that Ken Levy treats criticism fairly and directly and that he continues dialogue here even with those that consistently criticize.
>
>The "private channels", meanwhile, are a detriment to the community at large and, possibly, to MVPs in particular.
>They are detrimental to the community for reasons such as:
>1) the existence of bugs remain in the private domain when they really do, potentially, affect everyone. There is absolutely no benefit to keeping MVP-encountered bugs private!
>2) the content of 'wishes' (for lack of a better word) remain in the private domain. This one has particularly onerous overtones. Firstly, one can imagine that enhancements expressed through private channels have a better chance to become fetures. Secondly, one can imagine a more thorough 'discussion' of such (private) suggestion such as we can only wish for (pun intended) in the public wish list.
>3) That MVPs too have problems with aspects of the product remains virtually unknown within the community.
>
>At the very least I see no reason whatsoever for MVPs to not also publish any "private channel" communication here on UT and elsewhere too. At least that content that is directly product related (assuming that there may be other content too).
>
>I am certainly one who has long felt that MVPs (I really am only familiar with the VFP crowd) were too aloof, spoke too quickly on behalf of MS and generally acted in unison as a clique. To me this is detrimental to the individuals holding the status of MVP. Since you make it clear that open criticism by MVPs is acceptable it would behoove you all to be more open in places like UT.
>Continue to use the "private channels" if you will, but don't hesitate to repeat the same stuff publicly.
>
Jim,

As an MVP, did it ever occur to you that the reason that some of us seem to move in "lockstep" regarding certain issue is that each of us, independently, as come to the same conclusion?

To the best of my knowledge, none of use have ever tried to "keep secret" any problem with VFP or any other product. In fact, we work with Microsoft to make the issue known.

The fact that there's a private MVP news group is irrelevant. In most cases this newsgroup is used to identify potential new MVPs. What it isn't used for is some kind of covert method of propogating the Microsoft "party line".