I think most of us (I hope) vote for P-reps based on what they promise they will do.
Is there some kind of group who evaluates to what extent these P-reps were able to deliver on their promises? I want to know which P-reps actually do what they say they will do.
I want to change my allocation because from what I see most of the top P-Reps who claim they will do X to enrich ICON are not delivering much if at all.
As voters, I believe we should be more vigilant and hold P-reps we vote for to a high standard.
EDIT: I also want to say that it is within the P-Reps rights to do nothing and we can't force them to do something. In fact, game theory wise, it is in their interest and we should expect that they should do as little as possible as long as our votes are secured to maximize their profit. I think that all we can do as "community members" is simply move our vote elsewhere so that that "minimum work" they think they need to do will change. Which is why through this post I am saying that I think that information on what P-reps actually do besides what they say is important.
EDIT 2 (putting a portion of my reply to one of the comments here since I find it generally relevan)t: I think the general public still doesn't understand that with decentralization also comes more individual responsibility. I see many still expecting a lot (IMO too much) from the ICON Foundation. If ICON is truly decentralized and the design works well, there should be no need for a centralized entity like the ICON foundation and all the governance is on the P-reps whether collaboratively or competitively.