The MVP Award is an annual award that is given to people who actively share their technical expertise with the world. Among other benefits, MVP awardees get a certificate from Microsoft, a free subscription to MSDN / TechNet and early access to software much before they get released to public.
Jon Skeet, who now works as a developer at Google, has been an MVP (Most Valuable Professional) since 2003 for his contributions to the C# programming language – he even wrote a book – C# in Depth.
The MVP award is valid for one year so when his renewal cycle was near, so when Jon asked his employer (Google) if he could apply to get the award renewed, he "was advised not to do so."
As renewal time came round again, I asked my employer whether it was okay for me to renew, and was advised not to do so. As a result, while I enjoyed being awarded as an MVP, I’ve asked not to be considered for renewal this year.
This doesn’t sound very Google-like and I may have had trouble believing the report had it not come straight from the horse’s mouth. Is it a good idea to deny "recognition" to an employee just because the organization giving away that award is your rival?
Jon is working on the Google Sync (Mail/Contacts/Calendar) project but says that his 20%time (a perk) will still go for C# related stuff though his no longer an MVP.
Find this article at: http://www.labnol.org/internet/microsoft-award-banned-at-google/10179/
Reader Comments
As a long-time MVP myself, I have to say this is not surprising. While the MVP award is recognition for community contributions, Microsoft requires each MVP awardee to sign a multi-page, ironclad NDA covering information learned through various programs that are available to MVPs.
This NDA can be a legal issue with companies like Google, and I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.
Written by James Kendrick on 10.02.09
This message is for Jon,
Jon. IMO No company can survive for long, even google. This is crazy. not acceptable. What is google trying to do.. keep employees as slaves?
I would recomend to find an alternative job if you are really talented, or even start a startup and dump google for their silly act.
- Thanks,
TechDevil
Written by TechDevil on 10.02.09
As far as i can understand, all google said was “we are not going to reimburse you for this”. Even my company will do the same if the certification is not valuable for the company. Its not a Google vs MS thing as you are trying to make it look
Written by arun on 10.02.09
[Quote] As far as i can understand, all google said was “we are not going to reimburse you for this”.[/quote]
If that is the case, it is quite understandable.
Written by neeraj on 10.03.09
that is such BS, i can’t believe google would take such a stance, i wonder what would have happened if he just got it, why did he feel he needed to ask permission.
Written by Greg Keane on 10.04.09
The MVP “award” is not a certification. Google wouldn’t have to reimburse Jon for anything.
There’s probably more to this story than meets the eye, but be clear about this, it is not a certification that a firm “reimburses” anyone for.
Written by Susan on 10.04.09
Just goes to show – as with so many things, it’s much easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
Written by Ian on 10.04.09
The days of Google “is not evil” are long gone. Google is the new Microsoft and may probably get worse than MS is right now.
Written by Matthew on 10.04.09
Those of you spouting “reimbursement” are just trying to rationalize the act with a red herring. There’s nothing to reimburse – it’s not a certification, it’s an award. It not only doesn’t cost anything, it supplies the MVP with benefits for free.
Google’s act is shameful.
Written by SunTsu on 10.04.09
You mean Google now write ‘operating systems’ too?
Written by Lee on 10.05.09
I just don’t see any wrong doing here by google. Why would a company endorse having CURRENT employees applying for recognition from their biggest competitor!
Written by Kieran on 10.05.09
@TechDevil
“This NDA can be a legal issue with companies like Google, and I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.”
Umm, yes… not a Google vs M$ issue is it?? Please think twice before uttering nonsense.
Written by GuyverXT9 on 10.05.09
@neeraj
I think the point is that your employer has to pay for your mvp application. He can still do it off his own back. Personally I agree with google. It doesn’t benefit them for this guy to have an extra certificate on his wall then why pay for it?
Written by James on 10.05.09
This is so sad, Unless he was using company time to help the C# community, but even then, Google should only have monitored his activities at work.
Well I Guess Google might have her own reason(s) for doing that but i think Jon is working in a wrong place!
Written by Wilson Kutegeka on 10.05.09
>> As far as i can understand, all google said was “we are not going to reimburse you for this”. Even my company will do the same if the certification is not valuable for the company.
Arun, MVP is NOT certification nor does it cost money. MVP is about MS rewarding those who do something in the community. It is more likely that it is about the NDA. MVPs can learn about items earlier than most ( although it never seems earlier than the press) so that could prove to be the issue.
Written by Andrew on 10.05.09
Don’t be so hard on Google. Can you imagine what Microsoft would do to an employee who accepted an award from Google?
Written by Charlie Berg on 10.05.09
That’s certainly a shame. Jon is one of the most visible MVPs out there, and does a hell of a great job contributing to the C# community. I certainly hope the contributions won’t stop as a result of this decision. That would be a great loss.
Written by David Morton on 10.05.09
On one side of this I think, what a shame, but when reading about having to sign an NDA… ok I guess I can see where we’re starting to get into non-compete and privledged information territory. I guess I should consider myself lucky as I’m neither an MS MVP or a Google employee.
Written by Mike Devenney on 10.05.09
You must be one hell of a google fanboy!!! or a very ignorant person about what MS MVP is… MVP is not a certification is a recognition!!! and a one that Jon will have to decline because Google being such a crapload of a company… don’t be evil my ass!!!
Written by @TechDevil on 10.05.09
There might be a conflict of interest. Do you think CIA wants his employees to be a VP of KGB? It depends.
Written by Spring Open on 10.05.09
@arun, @neeraj
There is no cost associated with becoming an MVP – this is a seperate program than the Microsoft Certifications you might be thinking of.
Needless to say, I can understand Google’s position – there are a ton of possible legal issues with their employees having an NDA agreement with their competitors. They are not “being evil” nor are they “enslaving their workers”, they’re simply doing the smart thing and avoiding the situation altogether.
Also, not being an MVP doesn’t stop Jon from contributing his time to the communities – he just doesn’t get the retrospective award from Microsoft for those contributions.
Remember – having a TLA doesn’t make you a community leader!
Thanks,
Seth Rowe [MVP]
Written by Seth Rowe on 10.05.09
Ask the lawyers, don’t blame Google right away
Written by Le Son on 10.05.09
Who proofreads this stuff? It’s not “Most Value Professional,” it’s “Most Valuable.” Get the headlines right, at least!
Written by jeff on 10.05.09
To James Kendrick’s point above – as an MVP myself, I’d hope that you were aware that you can refuse the NDA and _still_ accept the award. You don’t get to do product group interactions, or the MVP Summit, and you may not get the same beta opportunities, but you can still be an MVP while refusing to keep Microsoft’s secrets.
For arun, neeraj: this is not a class or certification that you have to spend any money on. It is an award – a gift – as recognition for community involvement that has assisted users of Microsoft’s software. In this case, it’s because Jon Skeet has been really helpful to C# developers – myself included – by publishing answers to questions, and by writing books on the topic of C# development.
Written by Alun Jones on 10.05.09
[quote]that is such BS, i can’t believe google would take such a stance, i wonder what would have happened if he just got it, why did he feel he needed to ask permission.[/quote]
If you were required to sign an NDA (a legal contract) with a competitor of your employer, don’t you think it’s wise to (a) ask your employer about it first, and (b) that your employer should have some concern that the legal contract may cause some future problems?
Imagine Microsoft telling Google “sorry, you can’t use the feature in Google Sync, since Jon learned it through information given to him under NDA”.
Written by George Geczy on 10.05.09
What about Model View Presenter ? STUPID !!!
Lets not give Microshaft dominion over the acronym
Hold Me.
Written by Quarkius on 10.05.09
[quote]I guess I should consider myself lucky as I’m neither an MS MVP or a Google employee.[/quote]
You really dodged that bullet.
Written by DanQ on 10.06.09