My friend Steve Jones posted an article called What's an MVP on SSC that in turn led to a moderately interesting discussion about the MVP program. If you're interested in how the program works or what it takes to get in, it's worth reading both - though you still won't have all the answers! I've got a couple posts in the thread where I'm arguing in favor of greater disclosure of the criteria for entrance, posting the achievements that lead to a person being an MVP, and rotating people out of the program for a year every x years to bring in some new (qualified) faces. The truth is the program is a huge success for MS and I doubt they have much incentive to change it from their perspective, but perhaps they'll look at it from the perspective of the non-MVP/want to be MVP and try to address those audiences a little better.

Suggesting changes isn't the same as criticizing the people in it. I know or have met quite a few of the SQL MVP's and they are both knowledgeabe and nice people, and I respect their skills and accomplishments. That's not to say that as far as MVP's overall I haven't met a few that, well, let's say annoyed me (and probably vice versa!).

I'm not an MVP and don't expect to meet the substantial bar set by those in the program (my friend Steve does about 300 posts a month, I do about 5). Could I change my work style/focus and do 300 (or 400, or 500) posts a month and maybe make it in? Perhaps, though there is no way to know if even that amount of work would cross the magic line. For now I'll continue to do the things that interest and challenge me, and if some point they coincide with becoming an MVP, that's fine, and if not, thats ok too! In the interests of taking my own medicine I'll just add the equivalent of a campaign pledge; if (should be IF) I ever become an MVP I'll include in my profile exactly what I did to get in the door and I'll recuse myself the following year. That's not a challenge to the rest, just me being me.