>>>>><snip>
>>>>>My point is still that the PUTM offer and MVP status, imo, should not be linked per se. For instance I think DenisC should get a PUTM for life because of his enormous contribution furthering the VFP line <g> Seriously there are many great contributers here, many are not MVP.
>>>>
>>>>Hi Jos,
>>>>
>>>>In thinking about this, I remembered some history.
>>>>
>>>>It may not be strictly a decision by Michel, but one that is supplemented by MS. I don't know for certain, but it is a distinct possibility.
>>>
>>>Hi George,
>>>
>>>If that is the case then UT should say so.
>>
>>I don't get it. Why should the UT say it if it's the case?
>
>I have an opinion on this one < s >...
>Full disclosure is ALWAYS the most preferable/comfortable for USERS of all the options available to any business.
>While any business can decide what it wants to reveal, a business serves itself and its users better if such is kept to an absolute minimum.
>
>As an example, we are NOT well served by Microsoft as long as it chooses to keep the known bug list to itself.
>This is different but it can add significantly to comfort for users. And for your pet peeve it would indicate at least a little 'marketing' $ being spent by MS.
>
>cheers

As I said to Jos I agree that the situation should be clarified. But besides that it's none of my business. It's up to the UT managers to act on this one.