Incoming thought food
Here's how this works.
So what would be the differences between a can-do-ocracy and a meritocracy? I'm not sure, but I think the main difference will be in terms of peer interaction, i.e. community process.
In a meritocracy, you are evaluated on your merits, an evaluation done by your peers, which means it is external to you. You try to align your acts with the general consensus of your peers, and try to convince them of opposing ideas only if you really want to move in an opposite direction. Peer appreciation is of paramount importance.
In a can-do-ocracy, you do things 'just because you can', foregoing the appreciation of your act by your peers, rather as the ultimate scratch of one's own private itches. External appreciation is an optional afterthought.
Does this mean one of these community development styles is superior to the other? I don't think so - I just think for some people the external motivator is more important than for others. In the end, they are all contributing to the same cause.
6:40:29 AM comment