Russell,

It has been said in this thread that there is no "reward" for being named a VFP MVP. You have pointed out some benefits.

Some may not consider a full MSDN subscription as a "reward", but I think many of us do. There may be other stuff too.

I don't begrudge in any way such "compensation" for our MVPs, who provide us all with very valuable services.
But I do find it troubling that such 'gifts' are not considered as "rewards" by (some) MVPs.

Jim


>The MVP award brings a certain level of recognition and respect. Most MVPs, when marketing their services, point out that they are MVPs. They do this because they believe, with good reason, that it will offer a competitive advantage. Since it can offer a competitive advantage, they want to keep the "rating". To do this they have to continue to contribute to the community, which is good, but I think it's reasonable to assume that they also need to stay in Microsoft's good graces (since MS make the awards). So they may walk softly in regards to criticism of MS, because if they don't get the award again, they lose something that has given them an advantage. They have no obligation to criticize MS, as you point out, but I do feel they have an obligation to be honest with the community (as we all do). The desire to ensure they keep the award might cause them to be less than honest. I only point out that the conflict exists, not that any particular MVP is acting inappropriately. And
>I also pointed out that others have noted this same conflict. If there were a way to remove it, it would actually strengthen the program and bring an even greater benefit to the MVPs.
>
>
>>Russell,
>>
>>You say there is an "obvious potential for conflict of interest", where I don't see one at all. Here are some examples of conflicts of interest:
>>
>>* A buyer for a company who just so happens to own a large stake in a vendor.
>>* A football player who makes a bet on a game he is playing in (betting on the other team)
>>
>>In both these cases, the person has an *obligation* to meet. For example, the buyer is obligated by job duties to best put their employers purchasing dollars to use. However, in these examples, the person has put themselves in a position that is at odds with their obligations.
>>
>>I don't see the same situation here. MVP's (or noone else, for that matter) are under no obligation to criticize MS.
>>
>>FWIW, that's my take on it.
>>
>>>All I can say is that people do wonder about whether the MVPs can be completely honest and objective and resist the obvious potential for conflict of interest. I am not the only one that has said that, however I haven't seen you lecturing anyone else, unless I just missed it. Basically, the potential for a conflict of interest does exist, though you seem to turn a blind eye to it. You say "the problem, however, occurs when the feeling/wonder/opinion, is given voice." You amaze me! We can have opinions, but not voice them? We can wonder, but not criticize because "it may give a bad impression about the program"? What's the goal here, George? Open and honest discussion or just to protect the MVP program? I was here to discuss, which means I have to voice my opinion. If you want to try to squelch my opinion in order not to "give a bad impression about the program", then too bad. My impression, overall, of the program is good, but I have some misgivings. If you can't handle
>>>that and you only want praise for the MVP program to be uttered here, then you had better wake up and smell the coffee - ain't nothing perfect and the MVP program is no exception. I didn't expect these types of comments from you!
>>>