Addressed in the document:
> Meritocracy: In a meritocracy, the most qualified people for a job are selected for that job. In a do-ocracy, whoever does the job gets it, no matter how well they’re qualified.
I'd add that "merit" is a less useful concept to construct an organization around than "doing". Merit is impossible to measure, and every measure prone both to being gamed and to unfairly underestimating people and shutting them out, but is also the wrong thing to optimize for. The thing you want to optimize for is the work being, and for the overall effort to result in a high quality end product. Most parts of a given project aren't particularly critical and it doesn't matter who does them as long as they're done. If a particular part of the project is struggling, then the problem is that they needs support, not that they have "insufficient merit;" taking the unnecessary moral component out of it makes it easier to see what the problem is and to organize the resources to solve it. If some role is sensitive and requires special qualifications, that's an exception that can be dealt with as it arises (and if you're in a problem space where that's the rule and not the exception, fair enough, perhaps this isn't the approach for you).
I've not been in an organization that labeled itself a "DoOcracy", but it sounds like it's potentially less political and more productive than meritocracy.