This is not about being "born".
I personally don't care how somebody got his skill. I really care about three things:
1. the speed with he/she learns new skills/knowledge/points.
2. the depth of knowledge he/she is able to acquire.
3. how much he/she has learned in his/her career.
1. This first measure is important, because in a startup the situation can change drastically and you have to have a team that can adapt.
2. The deeper he/she can dig the broader is the set of problems they can solve.
3. The third measure also plays a large role, because while you can have some body that is really bright and has "the skills" - but if they don't use them over time efficiently enough, their strength in the first two skills won't carry them far.
i.e. personally I would measure the value of a developer has a product of the three factors - they amplify each other.
I think your criteria sound very fair. I would be curious to know how many generalists - which is what you seem to be describing - are able to produce the kind of 1000x returns that PG was describing though. Perhaps your definition of a great programmer is simply more reasonable and accessible?
I believe 1000x is likely a combination of luck and a bunch of pre-conditions. Something like this:
1. you got a 10x-person or a bunch of 2x-5x ppl.
2. your organisation doesn't drag down this constellation; but actually supports it.
3. the right problem arrives and the right tools are close to be at the needed level; but before it's obvious to anybody but a few.
A note regarding the "right" problem. I believe there are a lot of problems that a "10"x won't achieve his/her true potential "10"x speed.
I think the "right" problem is more like a problem that matches the skills of the tea very well. The match might not be that obvious.
1. the speed with he/she learns new skills/knowledge/points. 2. the depth of knowledge he/she is able to acquire. 3. how much he/she has learned in his/her career.
1. This first measure is important, because in a startup the situation can change drastically and you have to have a team that can adapt. 2. The deeper he/she can dig the broader is the set of problems they can solve. 3. The third measure also plays a large role, because while you can have some body that is really bright and has "the skills" - but if they don't use them over time efficiently enough, their strength in the first two skills won't carry them far.
i.e. personally I would measure the value of a developer has a product of the three factors - they amplify each other.