I'll probably write a blog post laying this out a bit more clearly, but responding to a few of the comments here:
* I don't think 'rock star' programmers is important. I think that most programmers got into the game because they love programming, not because it's what they have to do. There are exceptions, but I believe that more programmers love doing it then have to do it. The point is to setup an environment where you as an employer can get the most out of people of a range of talent simply by setting up an environment that motivates in the best way possible - through autonomy, mastery and purpose. I think people that don't seem passionate will become more passionate if given the freedom.
* to be clear, i said every 'developer' makes the same. or, better said, every role makes the same - there are roles that make different amounts, but it's still pretty flat and people are not individually offered different salaries by some subjective determination of their merit, but rather equally by the general role they are hired to do. it so happens that most of our employees are either developers or designers and they're all paid the same out of simplicity. the main point is that salary is less important than environment.
* finally, i'm not saying that the way that github does it is the way that you should do it - we have the difference of the C-suite being open source developers, so it's easier for us. the point is that even this somewhat radical example works surprisingly well, and that if you try to optimize for autonomy and purpose in the lives and working environment of your developers that it will most likely result in a much more productive output.
again, i'll try to do a more comprehensive post on what i specifically was talking about, rather then just the slides out of context, but i wanted to quickly address some of the comments. thanks! also, it was a blast doing the keynote, so thanks to everyone that attended and argued about it after.