# Compensation Council ### Step 1: Delegation Warcamp selects a 5 person council to review Commitment Compensation for the upcoming cycle (expanded to 3 month cycle) Each circle & WC holds a nomination and vote process. Process should include a 2nd option in case same individual is nominated by 2 circles. These 5 individuals comprise the council. Question: What if same person is elected twice? ### Step 2: Submission WarCamp Contributors make their value level proposals as normal A period for comment is opened (all Warcamp encouraged to comment) Comment is contained to a too high/too low signal Signal is anonymous, sent directly to council * Option 2: Flow feedback through buddy system ### Step 3: Response Council compares individual value level proposals Assesses each request using: * Value level guidelines * Past proof of work * Coordinape results * Feedback & Comments from WC * Runway/Budget considerations * Skill/Attention Retention needs * Subjective Experience Council makes Recommendation for value levels * Includes value level array for all Commitment Track WCers * Checkbox/Rubrik form for above Criteria ### Step 4: Ratification * Response is revealed in a forum post * Period for comment * Signal proposal processed on-chain **Contributor Followup Options** If your Value Level was decreased, you have options: Do the work at the assigned value level Use the retroactive track instead (TBD container) -Reapply once/month, and use Retro track work as justification Part ways? **Principles** Feedback from others helps you improve The organization improves from having many people improving Delegation of authority to a smaller group for streamlined processing Incorporation of DAO-wide signalling for use in decision making **Questions/Ideas:** Could use Buddy System to collect feedback for your buddy How many Warcampers are there? What’s the max votes. Hat protocol share staking mechanism for council membership Easier for experienced to stake Hat budget limits power concentration Negotiation & renegotiation concerns. Retroactive is a release valve on disagreement After a month of Retro performance, resubmit could be possible. Importance/Prioritization guidelines impact Retro authorizations Prospective: Importance (High/Low level), Committment Retroactive: High level workstream, Low level workstream (incl. contributors) Incorporate Reputation systems available in Web3: Weighting proof of work over individual judgement/assessments Also evaluate Retro contributors & be evaluating.