One of the topics that we didn’t have time to discuss during the last Council and Peers Meetup was inactive reps and the process to handle them.
I would like to open discussion here on next steps, no need to share the list of probably inactive reps to discuss the SOP 
How do you define “inactive rep”?
Reps that don’t fulfil their responsibilities and have been with few or none activity for a few months.
I think an additional part of this discussion should also be defining what does and does not count as activity clearly. Only then can we really work out how to proceed with inactive reps IMO.
I do a lot of Mozilla (and potentially Reps) related work outside of my job, however the line between what I can and cant should / shouldn’t put in is very blurred. This may well be the case for many others (and I know it is for a number of people I’ve spoken too), and could lead to people appearing to be inactive when in actuality they are doing a lot, just not adding it into the system as they’re unsure as to whether or not they should.
So two tasks I see…
The current “rule”, although not very well documented, is to consider a Rep inactive if he/she hasn’t report anything over the last 3 months. Given the fact that we now have continuous reporting on the portal, it’s now more easy for a Rep to document an activity even if it feels to be marginal inside Reps role.
I think that any mozilla activity is part of Rep activity, in any functional or regional area, it’s a wide concept.
What it’s not considered a Rep one is any activity related with other FOOS projects for example, unless it’s related somehow to mozilla.
Also Reps are encouraged to work IN the community, not doing isolated efforts on their own.
This needs to be better communicated to Reps then as a number are not sure if normal mozilla activity counts. Many feel its events only, (online or physical), and/or activities directly tied to ReMo.
For some reason we didn’t do a report-back on the second set of problems we tackled. Brian, Michelle, William R, Marcia, and myself ended up with the group with problems about clearly defining the purpose of the Reps program within Mozilla, clearly defining a Rep and also evaluating how much activity is fair to expect from a Rep.
Reps and reporting in the past have been incredibly event centric and when we were brainstorming what value Reps can bring to other functional teams, most of the value was centered around connections, and not events. We’re also in the process of updating the reporting system to make it less event centric as well. I wonder how closely the current set of inactive Reps will match up with the set we’ll get after the improvements.
I guess another big question to ask is - what would we do with inactive Reps? Marking a Rep as inactive doesn’t mean we’re kicking them out. So what does it mean? If it means my mentor has to make any budget or swag requests for me until I’ve re-earned active status (how do I do that?) then I’m ok with that.
So, to summarize, my questions:
With the introduction of the new reporting system, we’ll have a better way for Reps to report many types of activities. We can also create automation, so a Rep is marked as inactive when they have not reported any activities after a certain period of time. More discussion in this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=951503
The new report form will have several activities to report that are not events focused, so Reps can show their value and impact in other ways. Since some Reps are actively involved and not organizing events, I think we’ll see more active Reps. I myself fall into this group.
I suggest we start with just showing ‘inactive’ on the Rep’s profile. I think it also makes sense that inactive Reps cannot request swag or budget on their own.
Here are my ideas for a first implementation on the Reps Portal:
The Rep’s profile is marked as inactive.
The Rep can create a report, either by completing the report form or triggering a passive report (at the moment, those reports are triggered by creating an event or marking your attendance for an event).
I think it would be good for mentors to reach out to their inactive Reps and see if they need help or just need a break.
The Reps Dev team is starting to build the idea of inactive Reps, which for now just indicates that a Rep hasn’t reported any activities during a period of time (say, 3 weeks).
The Reps Dev team is starting to build the idea of inactive Reps, which for now just indicates that a Rep hasn't reported any activities during a period of time (say, 3 weeks).
Isn’t 3 weeks a little short? Remember lots of us are volunteers!
Two quick comments:
I agree that just because a Rep has not been active (ie. organized or participated in events or activities) does not mean (s)he should be removed from the program. If a Rep has been accepted into the program, it implies that (s)he has extensive experience in the project and has the necessary skills/experience/passion to represent Mozilla, regardless of their availability. If this “inactive” Rep still wants to be a representative of Mozilla and be available to whoever would like to get in touch with them, then that should be OK.
It is critical to distinguish Reps are actively engaged in Rep activies, those who are not and those who no longer care to be a Rep and don’t make the effort to leave the program. For the latter, we should definitely remove them from the program. For the former, I think it would be useful to specify on their profile page that they are “ACTIVE”. Finally, for those Reps who are not active but are available to help, then perhaps it would help to specify that they are “AVAILABLE”.
Thoughts?
Isn’t that overcomplicated? I see clearly that you are active (doing stuff) or you are not, if we add more and more layers it’s impossible to know what each one means or what you can do in each one.
Indeed, most of the Reps are volunteers. Except that when you applied to become a Mozilla Rep, you (in one way or another) volunteered to dedicate time to fulfill your duties as a Rep.
What makes a Rep unique from other Contributors to the Project?
Very true however 3 weeks is a little short. Yes you’ve dedicated time, but not your life. There are often times that work/school/life events get in the way, and can take 3 weeks to solve/improve/whatever. Take exams for those reps at uni’s. That can sometimes be well over a month or two. So I think a couple of months would be a better time frame.
I agree, in fact currently it’s 3 months with no report.
My suggestion is for a mentor to simply reach out to a mentee if the mentee has not reported any activities in the last 3 weeks. I believe with the current monthly reporting that some mentors reach out to mentees who file an empty report to check in with them, see if they need help and give encouragement. Perhaps 3 weeks isn’t the right time span though.
@hoosteeno identified three issues that are being discussed in this thread that we should handle separately and not confuse:
3 weeks may be too short, but 3 months is way too long IMHO.
+1 to the idea
Hi Kensie, you left out one important question, why is the rep innactive? I think that would quickly help resolve your second question.
Maybe we need to talk also about inactive mentors?