[philh]

> Expanding who you know, how much they like/admire you, and how much they want to work with you is part of meritocracy. Imagine it as a multiplier to product merit and,as a founder, you NEED to imagine it as part of your job.

Why are you counting these as part of meritocracy, rather than deviations from it?

(If they're sufficiently small deviations, you could still call the overall ecosystem a meritocracy. But then you have a meritocracy with deviations, and enshrining the deviations as part of meritocracy seems like a mistake.)

(I could also see an argument that "meritocracy plus it matters how likeable you are" would be preferable in many ways to just pure meritocracy. But "meritocracy plus it matters who you know" seems like a bad direction to go in.)

[webwright]

"Why are you counting these as part of meritocracy, rather than deviations from it?"

Because hiring, sales, pr, marketing, bizdev and fundraising are all part of startup success... Building and cultivating a good network is hugely valuable for all of that, no?

[philh]

It is in today's culture. In another country, maybe it's hugely valuable to know the correct officials to bribe. That doesn't mean it would be valuable in a meritocratic culture.

The question is whether or not SV is meritocratic; your argument appears to be along the lines of "these things are valuable in SV, so they are part of meritocracy", which is circular.

[ElComradio]

You are caught in a semantics discussion. "Meritocracy" in tech circles _is_ talking about "code/product" as you say. When a company advertises saying "We are a strict meritocracy" they are not saying, "We value code but also your ability to schmooze". Of course things other than code matter, a lot more than code itself, but that isn't how the term is used in the industry.