Thanks! me too got this first question in my mind…who are inactive reps?
Best,
ganesh
Quoting my first message in this topic:
Yes, we identified that we need to strengthen Reps leadership, because the effects of weak leadership will trickle down. Personally I think it’s important that we focus on pursuing those solutions first as I think that will help strengthen the program as well as realize just how active we can expect everyone to be.
@williamq I like that you’ve identified a layer below active and above “shouldn’t be a rep”. I think that makes a lot of sense and allows us to access the value that these inactive Reps are still willing and able to provide.
@r_oVhPfcJCUUC5wbm6i4_C2Q I don’t think this adds complexity because this is already what’s going on in the program. I think this allows us to better manage the program and get more value out of the way things have ended up working naturally.
@williamr If we allow filing one report to make a rep active again, then what will basically happen is Reps will file a report right before they need to make a new request. That’s why I like Q’s proposal to have an actual identified group. That way we can have a bit more formal criteria for moving between the groups without having the negative label of “inactive.” So for example, if I were to be “Available” instead of “Active” and that meant that my mentor would have to file my budget requests for me, that would be ok with me and then I wouldn’t try to “game” the system by filing reports only when I knew I’d want the resources again.