Last Wednesday, VMware has published a list with the vExperts for 2017.
I’m on this list. I’m on this list for the fourth time, which makes me very happy and proud. I was surprised that I’m on this list. I have written only a few blog posts last year. I sometimes tweet about VMware, and I am active in some forums. The focus of this blog has shifted.
Are there too many vExperts?
Eric Siebert from vsphere-land.com wrote a blog post about the vExpert announcement (vExpert 2017 announced and there are still too many vExperts & vExpert class of 2016 announced – are there too many vExperts). Eric thinks that VMware makes it to easy to be a vExpert. There is no definition what it means to significantly contribute to the community.
Yes, Eric is right. The criteria are very “spongy”. And that is a problem. But it is not the problem. When the VMware community grows, the number of vExperts increase automatically.
Betteridge’s law of headlines - the answer is always no
Look at other community programs (Veeam Vanguard, Cisco Champion, PernixPro, Microsoft MVP etc.). These community programs were designed to reward individuals that have highly contributed to the community. These awards motivate individuals to contribute to the community. And if individuals contribute significantly, they are awarded for this. The increasing number of awarded individuals will motivate more community members to contribute. More individuals will be awarded. It’s a self-sustaining process. A process that will help your community to grow.
When you design such a community program, you don’t want to have a small elite group of individuals. You want that your community grows. But you must use the right criterias, and you must held the level high enough. You must not reward anyone, that missed the criteria. Otherwise the title becomes inflationary and loses its importance and reputation.
VMware should work on these criterias. They should rise the bar. But they should make the criterias and the election process transparent for everyone.