>The "private channels", meanwhile, are a detriment to the community at large and, possibly, to MVPs in particular.

As Pablo pointed out, sometimes there are NDA issues. Both the private MVP newsgroups and, of course, any beta groups are covered by an NDA.

>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!

My goal when I report a bug is to get it fixed. That's the priority. That said, when I see a message from someone having a problem that I know is caused by a bug, I tell them.

>2) the content of 'wishes' (for lack of a better word) remain in the private domain.

Like everyone else, MVP's are discouraged from sending ER's via email.

> This one has particularly onerous overtones. Firstly, one can imagine that enhancements expressed through private channels have a better chance to become fetures.

I think that's true only to the extent that those with access to the private channels tend to be people who can make a strong business case for their recommendations.

>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.

Personally, I've never figured out how I can comment on stuff on the UT wish list. I've looked a few times, but the mechanism hasn't been apparent.

That aside, I promise that in the other venues, ER's that need it do get a thorough discussion.

>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).

As I said, it's often covered by NDA.

I think I've said about as much as I can without blowing an NDA.

Tamar