Meritocracy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
See critique of shallow merit a''Do you judge nothing but code, or do you also include other skills, including “plays well with others”, in your reviews of people’s merit?'' - [https://geekfeminismdotorg.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/questioning-the-merit-of-meritocracy/] | See critique of shallow merit a''Do you judge nothing but code, or do you also include other skills, including “plays well with others”, in your reviews of people’s merit?'' - [https://geekfeminismdotorg.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/questioning-the-merit-of-meritocracy/] | ||
So in summary - yes to meritocracy - but | So in summary - yes to meritocracy - but not superstar asshole merit, typical in governance by [[Political Ponerology]] - but more [[Super-Cooperator]] merit. | ||
[[Category: OSE Governance]] | |||
Revision as of 17:41, 8 June 2020
About
Meritocracy is governance by merit. Merit is earned by experience or performance. However, mertit is not based on credentialism, but competency based on performance. Meritocracy is part of OSE project's governance. It is worth studying other projects' meritocracy principles to distill best practices.
OSE Context
We favor integrated merit, not shallow merit. Shallow merit is specialization: a person that is good at only one thing. OSE favors generalists. Not point skills, but integrated skill sets - where working well with others (collaboration) is more important than superstar skillsets:
See critique of shallow merit aDo you judge nothing but code, or do you also include other skills, including “plays well with others”, in your reviews of people’s merit? - [1]
So in summary - yes to meritocracy - but not superstar asshole merit, typical in governance by Political Ponerology - but more Super-Cooperator merit.