[HelloWorldInWS]

Defining "best" need not imply an objective definition in the same way that describing the "best" database architecture for a given set of requirements isn't entirely objective: "our programmers like to work with SQL more than MongoDB" is a subjective but sufficient argument to tip the scales.

Defining the "best people" is _obviously_ subjective. _People_ are subjective. There isn't just one "best"-- there is a set of "bests" that you can strive for. Just like the above example, it depends on your requirements, your priorities, etc.-- but most importantly, it doesn't need to be objective to work well, which brings us full circle to:

> "Best people" can mean the best team.

If you prioritize teamwork among individual contributors, this is what best people would imply.

The awesome part about a capitalist system is that companies have the freedom to experiment with these configurations of how they define "best". GitHub may define it differently from you, but that doesn't make their definition less valid.

Meritocracy is an idea, not a specification-- there is no one true meritocracy implementation. The discussion needs to start from there.

[s73ver]

If you want a Meritocracy, then Best does need an objective definition. Otherwise it's just a popularity contest.

[kybernetikos]

> Meritocracy is an idea, not a specification-- there is no one true meritocracy implementation. The discussion needs to start from there.

Im not convinced it does. If you want to say meritocracy says merely that we should try to hire the best people all things considered then no-one would disagree. The disagreement is precisely about which things it's appropriate to consider.

Typically meritocratic systems in practice make the assumption that it is possible to determine merit outside the context of a specific team. I think this assumption is highly suspect. Merit is not a fixed characteristic of the individual but rather an emergent property of them in their context and in relationship with those around them.