>1) I have NOT said that the MVP program should be "abandoned" in any way, shape or form.

You did suggest that we limit our private connections with Microsoft and work through the commnity instead. Considering that 99% of what the MVP program was designed to do was to provide a select part of the community better communication with the product teams, your suggestion would amount to abandoning the MVP Program.

>Now maybe you could first tell me what Microsoft's "return on their investment on MVPs" is, and then I can answer.

The ROI in the MVP Program is that Microsoft has a group of users that they know personally and can get honest feedback from in all respects of the product.

For example, ARS has an MVP program. I've never called it an MVP program, and, until today, I've never considered it an MVP program in any way. But I have a short list of users that I can contact, and they peresonally know me and know how to get a hold of me. They know my software, and they know their business. When they make suggestions, I listen closely; when they have a problem, I know how big of a problem it is because I have an ongoing personal relationship with them.

In the long run, these personal friends help make my product better for everyone that uses it, even though not all are privy to our private discussions.

This is the essence of the MVP Program. Suggesting that MVP's limit their use of the channels given to them defeats the purpose of the program and holds back the product for everyone.

>Because to me the major benefit of the MVP program (all disciplines) is that MS gets the services of lots and lots of high-quality support for a very small cost to them.

How did you get that idea?

>1) be open about their opinions about the utility of the feature and the quality of its content as it currently exists.

And most are, if you ask them.

>2) be compelled to use the UT Wish List to record their wishes too.

And many do. But most decide not to add superflous work to their busy schedules.

>Some in this thread expressed the observation that being an MVP compels an MVP to speak ONLY highly of MS and all of its products and tactics. I happen to agree that MVPs do appear to be under some constraint to do so

I mostly agree. Whoever said that there is no guideline is wrong (or that guideline has been removed). I believe the language was "positive or neutral". You simply don't notice neutral.

>and that criticism of MS and/or VFP simply does not happen (except extremely extremely rarely) in the VFP MVP group.

Thats baseless.