Despite having just complained loudly that I too reject the idea of poetic competence/competition, I am intrigued by the etymological sense shared by these words, both of which come from the Latin cum + petere, meaning "to strive together." How strange that a concept which now automatically calls to mind the idea of aggressive forces in opposition (or in the case of competence, simply to be suitable) originally had as its emphasis the ideal of cooperation in the service of a common cause. Not that aggression and opposition weren't integrally connected with the concept from the start, but it is interesting how the definitional valence has shifted.
So now I ask: what if there were a notion of poetic competence in which the point of the competition involved was on mutual effort and commitment? Or, more pointedly, is there such a notion in active practice?
What if competence were not about maintaining a benign inertia that makes one just barely viable as a participant in a scene filled with other vaguely "suitable" participants, but about having a unique ability that, put into play with the unique abilities of others, is capable of making something happen that is bigger than any one person could manage alone?