Jim,
I'd like to reply to your post one item at a time.
>1) I have NOT said that the MVP program should be "abandoned" in any way, shape or form. What I said is that the discussion of ERs and bugs would be best for the community and probably for MVPs too, if it was done in the open channels available to them rather than the private channels that are under NDA. This is specifically so, in my opinion, for the ERs (wish list items) where the OFFICIAL mechanism is the UT Wish List facility. I observed that arguing the same for bugs has less 'strength' but I feel that it carries similar benefits.
While I cannot speak for all MVPs, I don't recall anytime I have discussed anything with MS through the mentioned channels that was not also discussed in public (excepting those things that were under NDA). Thereason those channels exist is to help MS in diseminating information much wider than they could directly. They can communicate with MVPs who then communicate with large number of others. The reverse is that MVPs can spot something in the discussions and then get that to informatikon to MS.
So, IMO, the channels that exist for MVPs are beneficial to the community as a whole. They are not a replacement for other things but rather an enhancement to other mechanisms of communication.
>2) The benefit is not limited to me, but rather to the VFP community at large. As I've also said, I see real benefits for the MVP folks too, if only in 'humanizing' many of them in the view of the rest of us.
The MVP award is given to people that are active in the community. These people are provided with the certain benefits from MS most of which are given to increase the access to information so that MVPs can better provide accurate support and so to make the provision of support easier for the MVPs. The MVP award is one tool that MS uses to support their customers (all of their customers).
>Now maybe you could first tell me what Microsoft's "return on their investment on MVPs" is, and then I can answer.
The ROI for MS is more and better support for their customers without unduly high costs. MS giving an MSDN subscription to one person who then uses it to answer questions for 100s of others is most assuredly a cost savings for MS.
Also, I don't recall ever having spoken to MS through some special channel about ERs or BUGs because I am an MVP. I do know some people at MS than I occasionally speak with (not necessarily about ERs or Bugs) directl;y, but that is because I met them at a DevCon and over time got to know them as friends (many of them before they worked for MS).
>However, I do see how the UT Wish List could become the subject of positive change if the MVPs were to:
>1) be open about their opinions about the utility of the feature and the quality of its content as it currently exists.
I think MVPs for the most are quite voacl about tnhbeir opinions, perhaps not in the wish list but elsewhere.
>2) be compelled to use the UT Wish List to record their wishes too. Surely Microsoft derives no added benefit by having MVP ERs kept quiet. Surely MS derives no benefit by having to maintain multiple channels for wish list recording.
I can't MS compelling anyone to do anything at some specific thrid party location.
>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 and that criticism of MS and/or VFP simply does not happen (except extremely extremely rarely) in the VFP MVP group. I was told that such criticism happens regularly DESPITE THE PERCEPTION. So I also feel that using the OFFICIAL facility to record wishes would ALSO help to show that VFP MVPs 'are people too'.
Jim, UT's wish list is not the "OFFICIAL" facility, it is one of many facilities. I know for a fact that I have never been constrained by MS about anything. I happen to think thaty VFP is a very good product with minimal bugs, most of which are not show stoppers. I also tend to use Microsoft products because they work and do the job. I also use a number of non-Microsoft products. When I say something it is what I think and believe and is not in any way influenced by Microsoft through any coersion or "pressure".
>I hope this clears it up. Using "NDA" as the excuse is really using an "easy out" because NDA surely applies only to what is said there in the first place. So the NDA is NOT a factor if one chooses to use other places than the NDAed place to express certain things in the first place.
Although it is always possible that an MVP may possess some information that is, in fact, under NDA and cannot be shared. That is why is often a good idea to read between the lines on some MVP comments. There may be something the MVPs knows and cannot say.
