Utilisateur:Traroth/Coup de gueule - Discussions avec Jimbo
Voici une copie des discussions qui ont eu lieu entre Jimbo et moi après la publication de mon coup de gueule. Gardez à l'esprit que ça n'etait pas destiné à la publication initialement. J'espère que j'ai tout retrouvé. Si jamais ça devient incohérent (genre : on dirait qu'il manque un mail), prévenez-moi. Je n'ai pas répondu au dernier mail de Jimbo, n'ayant plus rien à ajouter.
N'hesitez pas à réagir dans la page de discussion de cette page.
Traroth,
Hello! Do you speak English at all? I am very sorry but I do not
speak French, but I would like very much to talk to you as I feel that
there must be some misunderstanding or misinformation. I think that
if you will talk to me you will feel much better about everything.
> I posted the following text: "Wikimedia
> Foundation: the worm in the fruit? At the
> time of the constituent assembly of
> association Wikimedia France, it was known
> as that Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia
> Foundation refused the right to him to use
> the marks which she held (Wikimedia,
> Wikipedia, Wktionary, Wikibooks...) if
> Foundation did not have a right of veto
> (the term made debate) on the decisions
> that would take the French foundation.
This is not correct. The legal structure of the French association
was not set by me in any way. I accepted what was offered to me and I
think it is a very wise arrangement. The key is to ensure for the
safety of all of us, of all that we love, that we make sure that the
entire project stays together and in agreement. The voice of the
foundation (not of me personally) is there to ensure continuity across
the entire project.
> anglophone members out of 5). This
> sipositif was not to be renewed, and a
> really democratic election was to take
> place this year (it is what had been known
> as at the time). One learns now that Jimmy
> Wales intends to continue with reserver the
> seat of president, with probably a right of
> veto on the decisions.
This is mistaken. I have always intended to continue as President so
long as the board accepts me. There are plans already to increase the
size of the board this year to transition slowly, but *for the safety
of our ideals* this will not happen all at once.
A great many people have expressed strong support for this: that we
become over time an institution, but that we do so cautiously and
carefully so that the ideals of the Wikimedia projects are maintained
consistently.
>* Don't the givers have a right of glance on the use which is made
>money that they gave? *
We publish *all* financial information. I do not know of any
organization that publishes as much detail as we do. If you have any
particular questions, I would love to hear them. Everything is
completely open to your inspection. If you will send me your fax
number, I will gladly fax you a copy of all the bank statements.
> We hear well: I do not have anything against Jimbo, and I would have
> been the first to be voted for him in 2004, and this, as a long time
> as there would have been ready to remain president.
I very much appreciate your support. It means a lot to me that people
trust in me and my wisdom. I am not a wealthy man. I have spent
almost all that I have on Wikipedia because it is my passion. And I
plan to be here for a very long time.
And I plan to transition the foundation into an organization that is
similar in structure to the International Red Cross / Red Crescent
Movement. But I am sure you are aware of the history of many
organizations which moved carelessly for institutional reform in such
a way that the purpose of the organization was subverted.
This is the reason for the steps I have taken, and I do not in any way
shape or form apologize for them.
You may not agree with my approach, but I think you will agree that it
is wise to proceed carefully. Putting in place proper institutional
structures will take time, it will take the careful wisdom of a lot of
people. Your input and support is welcome.
But please do not post anything anywhere ever which suggests that I
have in any way ever misled anyone. I have been quite clear from the
very beginning as to what the plans are. I have never said that we
would have a fully elected board this year, and I regard that
suggestion as being impetuous.
You seem to think that a fully elected board is the best defense
aganst the subversion of our ideals, but this is almost certainly not
true.
> Simply, this "privilege" is reserved to only one person.
I did not understand what this meant. If my position is special, it
is because I have given my life to Wikipedia. But even this is only
for the time of the beginning, as I guide the organization to a free
life on its own. It is a child, and should not be sent into the
streets while too young. Nor should it be kept a prisoner.
Balance is needed, and balance is what I seek. If you disagree with
how I find that balance, then I welcome your comments. But I do not
welcome attacks which hint at sinister motives, o.k.?
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> a écrit :
> Traroth,
>
> Hello! Do you speak English at all? I am very
> sorry but I do not
> speak French, but I would like very much to talk to
> you as I feel that
> there must be some misunderstanding or
> misinformation. I think that
> if you will talk to me you will feel much better
> about everything.
No problem. Just go ahead.
>
> > I posted the following text: "Wikimedia
> > Foundation: the worm in the fruit? At the
> > time of the constituent assembly of
> > association Wikimedia France, it was known
> > as that Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia
> > Foundation refused the right to him to use
> > the marks which she held (Wikimedia,
> > Wikipedia, Wktionary, Wikibooks...) if
> > Foundation did not have a right of veto
> > (the term made debate) on the decisions
> > that would take the French foundation.
>
> This is not correct. The legal structure of the
> French association
> was not set by me in any way. I accepted what was
> offered to me and I
> think it is a very wise arrangement. The key is to
> ensure for the
> safety of all of us, of all that we love, that we
> make sure that the
> entire project stays together and in agreement. The
> voice of the
> foundation (not of me personally) is there to ensure
> continuity across
> the entire project.
That's not what was said at the constituent assembly.
Things like "Wikimedia Foundation demand a minority of
blocking to let us use there trademarks" were heard.
And the final minority of blocking is so big, that no
decision can be taken without the Foundation. A log of
all IRC messages exists. I can check it back, if you
want. If you add to this fact some others (the strange
composition of the Board, where 3 of 5 Directors are
not elected, Anthere explaining me that you will stay
an irremovable President), the picture begin to become
dark... Don't misunderstand me : I don't say you are
some dictator or something, but just that the danger
exist, and I don't know you enough to know if you will
or not. I discussed the point much time before,
especially with Anthere, but each time, the discussion
was quickly filed, so I decided to strike the fist on
the table, and to make the discussion loud enough.
>
> > anglophone members out of 5). This
> > sipositif was not to be renewed, and a
> > really democratic election was to take
> > place this year (it is what had been known
> > as at the time). One learns now that Jimmy
> > Wales intends to continue with reserver the
> > seat of president, with probably a right of
> > veto on the decisions.
>
> This is mistaken. I have always intended to
> continue as President so
> long as the board accepts me. There are plans
> already to increase the
> size of the board this year to transition slowly,
> but *for the safety
> of our ideals* this will not happen all at once.
>
> A great many people have expressed strong support
> for this: that we
> become over time an institution, but that we do so
> cautiously and
> carefully so that the ideals of the Wikimedia
> projects are maintained
> consistently.
That's the point. Anthere (Board member) told me
something different in a previous discussion.
>
> >* Don't the givers have a right of glance on the
> use which is made
> >money that they gave? *
>
> We publish *all* financial information. I do not
> know of any
> organization that publishes as much detail as we do.
> If you have any
> particular questions, I would love to hear them.
> Everything is
> completely open to your inspection. If you will
> send me your fax
> number, I will gladly fax you a copy of all the bank
> statements.
>
> > We hear well: I do not have anything against
> Jimbo, and I would have
> > been the first to be voted for him in 2004, and
> this, as a long time
> > as there would have been ready to remain
> president.
>
> I very much appreciate your support. It means a lot
> to me that people
> trust in me and my wisdom. I am not a wealthy man.
> I have spent
> almost all that I have on Wikipedia because it is my
> passion. And I
> plan to be here for a very long time.
>
> And I plan to transition the foundation into an
> organization that is
> similar in structure to the International Red Cross
> / Red Crescent
> Movement. But I am sure you are aware of the
> history of many
> organizations which moved carelessly for
> institutional reform in such
> a way that the purpose of the organization was
> subverted.
>
> This is the reason for the steps I have taken, and I
> do not in any way
> shape or form apologize for them.
>
> You may not agree with my approach, but I think you
> will agree that it
> is wise to proceed carefully. Putting in place
> proper institutional
> structures will take time, it will take the careful
> wisdom of a lot of
> people. Your input and support is welcome.
>
> But please do not post anything anywhere ever which
> suggests that I
> have in any way ever misled anyone. I have been
> quite clear from the
> very beginning as to what the plans are. I have
> never said that we
> would have a fully elected board this year, and I
> regard that
> suggestion as being impetuous.
>
> You seem to think that a fully elected board is the
> best defense
> aganst the subversion of our ideals, but this is
> almost certainly not
> true.
>
> > Simply, this "privilege" is reserved to only one
> person.
>
> I did not understand what this meant. If my
> position is special, it
> is because I have given my life to Wikipedia. But
> even this is only
> for the time of the beginning, as I guide the
> organization to a free
> life on its own. It is a child, and should not be
> sent into the
> streets while too young. Nor should it be kept a
> prisoner.
I agree totally. Why don't publish an (indicative)
roadmap, indicating :
-The final goal, e.g. the final level of indepedence
Wikimedia will get at the end
-The steps to arrive there, without accure
chronological indication
>
> Balance is needed, and balance is what I seek. If
> you disagree with
> how I find that balance, then I welcome your
> comments. But I do not
> welcome attacks which hint at sinister motives,
> o.k.?
Do you really ask for blind confidence ?
You are free to feel my message as an attack, but it
doesn't was thought in this way.
>
> --Jimbo
>
The whole story could be a huge misunderstanding, with
legitimate questions without satisfactory answers, but
it's in any case interesting, because it's make people
aware of potential problems, and on the differences of
point of view concerning the future of Wikipedia, so I
don't really understand why I got so MUCH aggresive
answers. Hopefully, I don't care.
Alexis Dufrenoy (aka Traroth)
Traroth wrote:
> And the final minority of blocking is so big, that no
> decision can be taken without the Foundation.
This is not true. This is only true for major decisions, such as a
change of the charter. This is for mutual protection, what is wrong
with it? It would be totally wrong to have a completely independent
chapter which is *also* our legal representative. It's just
impossible. Why do you think it is bad?
> or not. I discussed the point much time before,
> especially with Anthere, but each time, the discussion
> was quickly filed, so I decided to strike the fist on
> the table, and to make the discussion loud enough.
This is silly -- why not just write to me and ask? I'm a very
friendly and open person, and it is not necessary to write bad things
about me in public in order to get my attention. I'm always open to
discussions.
> That's the point. Anthere (Board member) told me
> something different in a previous discussion.
I have always been quite plain and simple about my plans -- this is my
nature. I really don't know what you might have understood Anthere to
say, nor what she may have said. But please in the future if
something seems dark to you, ask me to shine some light?
> I agree totally. Why don't publish an (indicative)
> roadmap, indicating :
> -The final goal, e.g. the final level of indepedence
> Wikimedia will get at the end
> -The steps to arrive there, without accure
> chronological indication
The final goal is already well known and published: to have an
organization that is independent of me, and of any one person, and
which is insured to remain consistent with it's founding principles
- regardless* of democracy. This is perhaps the most important point
to understand: this is not a organization in which I think that
whatever the majority of the public wants is what we should do: it is
an organization of principles.
The steps to arrive that must evolve over time, as we test the waters
at each stage of the process.
If you expect that within 3 years there will be general public
elections for the entirety of the board, you will be disappointed.
This will not happen. If you expect that within 20 years, we will
evolve a structure of control that robustly balances possible
competing interests, then you will not be disappointed.
It is very easy to think at "Internet speed" but to get things wrong.
But this is going to be a major cultural institution for at least the
next 200 years. Therefore, caution is warranted, and I plan to move
slowly.
> Do you really ask for blind confidence ?
No! I do *not* ask for blind confidence. I ask for *active* and
- understanding* confidence, confidence that I have earned and continue
to earn every single day of the week with my actions and words.
> The whole story could be a huge misunderstanding, with
> legitimate questions without satisfactory answers, but
> it's in any case interesting, because it's make people
> aware of potential problems, and on the differences of
> point of view concerning the future of Wikipedia, so I
> don't really understand why I got so MUCH aggresive
> answers. Hopefully, I don't care.
The reason is that you asked your questions in a very confrontational
way, and posted several things that are just false. People know this,
because everything we do is so open and honest, and so they viewed you
as simply trying to cause trouble.
I think this is unfortunate, because I don't think that you are just
trying to cause trouble. But I do think it will be better if you join
with me in helping to plan for the future, without attacking me or
trying to stir up trouble in order to get your point across. It is
simply wrong to make dramatic pronouncements without asking me first
to talk to you, o.k.?
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> a écrit :
> Traroth wrote:
> > And the final minority of blocking is so big, that
> no
> > decision can be taken without the Foundation.
>
> This is not true. This is only true for major
> decisions, such as a
> change of the charter. This is for mutual
> protection, what is wrong
> with it? It would be totally wrong to have a
> completely independent
> chapter which is *also* our legal representative.
> It's just
> impossible. Why do you think it is bad?
But nothing indicate what is a "major decision" and
what not, so Wikimedia France is completly under
control. Limitate this power should be obvious. We are
not children.
>
> > or not. I discussed the point much time before,
> > especially with Anthere, but each time, the
> discussion
> > was quickly filed, so I decided to strike the fist
> on
> > the table, and to make the discussion loud enough.
>
> This is silly -- why not just write to me and ask?
> I'm a very
> friendly and open person, and it is not necessary to
> write bad things
> about me in public in order to get my attention.
> I'm always open to
> discussions.
>
> > That's the point. Anthere (Board member) told me
> > something different in a previous discussion.
>
> I have always been quite plain and simple about my
> plans -- this is my
> nature. I really don't know what you might have
> understood Anthere to
> say, nor what she may have said. But please in the
> future if
> something seems dark to you, ask me to shine some
> light?
OK. I will.
>
> > I agree totally. Why don't publish an (indicative)
> > roadmap, indicating :
> > -The final goal, e.g. the final level of
> indepedence
> > Wikimedia will get at the end
> > -The steps to arrive there, without accure
> > chronological indication
>
> The final goal is already well known and published:
> to have an
> organization that is independent of me, and of any
> one person, and
> which is insured to remain consistent with it's
> founding principles
> *regardless* of democracy. This is perhaps the most
> important point
> to understand: this is not a organization in which I
> think that
> whatever the majority of the public wants is what we
> should do: it is
> an organization of principles.
OK. Good it's said. But, according to what happened
and what was said previously, it was *not* obvious.
Maybe it's the main point, I think.
Principles are a very difficult point. Everyone has
not the same. Let me take an example : I never heard
from you a clear opposition to advertising, and that's
what caused the spanish fork. What if you want to
impose advertising ? Or, from a different point of
view, how will it be decided if it will be ads on
Wikipedia or not ? I think a huge majority of
contributors don't want ads. But if this point is not
a *principle*, what will happen in the future ? There
is no warranty.
>
> The steps to arrive that must evolve over time, as
> we test the waters
> at each stage of the process.
>
> If you expect that within 3 years there will be
> general public
> elections for the entirety of the board, you will be
> disappointed.
> This will not happen. If you expect that within 20
> years, we will
> evolve a structure of control that robustly balances
> possible
> competing interests, then you will not be
> disappointed.
>
> It is very easy to think at "Internet speed" but to
> get things wrong.
> But this is going to be a major cultural institution
> for at least the
> next 200 years. Therefore, caution is warranted,
> and I plan to move
> slowly.
>
> > Do you really ask for blind confidence ?
>
> No! I do *not* ask for blind confidence. I ask for
> *active* and
> *understanding* confidence, confidence that I have
> earned and continue
> to earn every single day of the week with my actions
> and words.
>
> > The whole story could be a huge misunderstanding,
> with
> > legitimate questions without satisfactory answers,
> but
> > it's in any case interesting, because it's make
> people
> > aware of potential problems, and on the
> differences of
> > point of view concerning the future of Wikipedia,
> so I
> > don't really understand why I got so MUCH
> aggresive
> > answers. Hopefully, I don't care.
>
> The reason is that you asked your questions in a
> very confrontational
> way, and posted several things that are just false.
> People know this,
> because everything we do is so open and honest, and
> so they viewed you
> as simply trying to cause trouble.
I prefer direct and open questions. I think other
people are asking themselves the same questions.
>
> I think this is unfortunate, because I don't think
> that you are just
> trying to cause trouble. But I do think it will be
> better if you join
> with me in helping to plan for the future, without
> attacking me or
> trying to stir up trouble in order to get your point
> across. It is
> simply wrong to make dramatic pronouncements without
> asking me first
> to talk to you, o.k.?
>
> --Jimbo
>
There is a certain type of person who cares more about a fictional
purity than about helping starving children. I hope you are not that
kind of person.
Traroth wrote:
> But nothing indicate what is a "major decision" and
> what not, so Wikimedia France is completly under
> control. Limitate this power should be obvious. We are
> not children.
Wikimedia France is *not* under complete control. So far, I have not
been consulted about anything, no questions or problems have been
raised, and I honestly don't anticipate that there will be any.
You are *not* children. I absolutely resent your saying that, and I
really think that the current board would be offended by your implying
anything of the sort.
Ask Ryo, ask Anthere, ask anyone at all, how much do I try to control
the French association? The answer from everyone will be: not at all.
Can you give me *any* example of this being a problem?
I deal with you and everyone as autonomous adults. We make
agreements, we stick to them. You trying to create a false anger
between us when there is none -- this is wrong and you should
apologize to me and to everyone else for it.
> OK. Good it's said. But, according to what happened
> and what was said previously, it was *not* obvious.
Maybe you did not pay attention to my words, but I have always said
exactly the same thing. All of what I am saying to you now has been
obvious for many years, and openly discussed. I am sorry if you are
new and don't follow the discussions, but don't go around acting as if
something has quietly changed when it has not.
> Maybe it's the main point, I think. Principles are a very difficult
> point. Everyone has not the same. Let me take an example : I never
> heard from you a clear opposition to advertising, and that's what
> caused the spanish fork. What if you want to impose advertising ?
> Or, from a different point of view, how will it be decided if it
> will be ads on Wikipedia or not ? I think a huge majority of
> contributors don't want ads. But if this point is not a *principle*,
> what will happen in the future ? There is no warranty.
Right now in Africa, people are starving to death for lack of
knowledge. I don't mean this in an idle academic way, I mean *lives
are being lost today*. People are in massive suffering and pain,
people whose lives could be saved in the future as a direct
consequence of our work.
Imagine a situation where it is possible for us to place a small
google ad in a discreet location on the search results page, and bring
in $1 million per month, which could go directly towards such projects
as:
1. Subsidizing the distribution GNU-free educational materials in
Africa
2. Sponsoring students and professors to translate our work into
languages
which will have the most impact on suffering in the world
3. Subsidize the development of free software tools for the furtherance
of all these goals
Now imagine that the community votes overwhelmingly to approve ads on
the grounds that we can in that way best fulfill our charitable
mission.
Then in such a case, I would not veto the decision, but I would more
than likely still vote "no". Do you understand this? Even in such a
case *I* am your best barrier to advertising.
It would be absolutely wrong for me to impose this as a principle or
condition for participation. I have always left this open because I
think respectful adults have to be mature about their decisions.
The Spanish fork was not caused by the concerns about advertising --
it was caused by lies spread which are not far from the things you are
saying now.
> I prefer direct and open questions. I think other people are asking
> themselves the same questions.
As they should -- but without implying dishonesty on my part. This
was very wrong of you.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> a écrit :
> There is a certain type of person who cares more
> about a fictional
> purity than about helping starving children. I hope
> you are not that
> kind of person.
???
> > OK. Good it's said. But, according to what
> happened
> > and what was said previously, it was *not*
> obvious.
>
> Maybe you did not pay attention to my words, but I
> have always said
> exactly the same thing. All of what I am saying to
> you now has been
> obvious for many years, and openly discussed. I am
> sorry if you are
> new and don't follow the discussions, but don't go
> around acting as if
> something has quietly changed when it has not.
>
The fact is that the answers I got shows that it's
- not* obvious. Maybe you should communicate a *bit*
more about it...
> > Maybe it's the main point, I think. Principles
> are a very difficult
> > point. Everyone has not the same. Let me take an
> example : I never
> > heard from you a clear opposition to advertising,
> and that's what
> > caused the spanish fork. What if you want to
> impose advertising ?
> > Or, from a different point of view, how will it be
> decided if it
> > will be ads on Wikipedia or not ? I think a huge
> majority of
> > contributors don't want ads. But if this point is
> not a *principle*,
> > what will happen in the future ? There is no
> warranty.
>
> Right now in Africa, people are starving to death
> for lack of
> knowledge. I don't mean this in an idle academic
> way, I mean *lives
> are being lost today*. People are in massive
> suffering and pain,
> people whose lives could be saved in the future as a
> direct
> consequence of our work.
>
> Imagine a situation where it is possible for us to
> place a small
> google ad in a discreet location on the search
> results page, and bring
> in $1 million per month, which could go directly
> towards such projects
> as:
>
> 1. Subsidizing the distribution GNU-free educational
> materials in
> Africa
> 2. Sponsoring students and professors to translate
> our work into languages
> which will have the most impact on suffering in the
> world
> 3. Subsidize the development of free software tools
> for the furtherance
> of all these goals
>
> Now imagine that the community votes overwhelmingly
> to approve ads on
> the grounds that we can in that way best fulfill our
> charitable
> mission.
>
> Then in such a case, I would not veto the decision,
> but I would more
> than likely still vote "no". Do you understand
> this? Even in such a
> case *I* am your best barrier to advertising.
>
> It would be absolutely wrong for me to impose this
> as a principle or
> condition for participation. I have always left
> this open because I
> think respectful adults have to be mature about
> their decisions.
I dont't understand why you are speaking about
principles in this case.
>
> The Spanish fork was not caused by the concerns
> about advertising --
> it was caused by lies spread which are not far from
> the things you are
> saying now.
>
> > I prefer direct and open questions. I think other
> people are asking
> > themselves the same questions.
>
> As they should -- but without implying dishonesty on
> my part. This
> was very wrong of you.
Which part of my message are you talking about ? I
only said that the possibility of decision opposite
to the principle of the community can be taken. I
still think so. I don't know you enough to presuppose
you will not. If you take it personnaly, it's your
business.
And just one thing : I don't speak with people calling
me a liar or so. I just reflected what Anthere said to
me. If she was wrong, just complain to her. And if you
want to write me another time to say I'm a liar or I
have to apologize or something like that, you can save
your time !
Traroth
Traroth wrote:
> The fact is that the answers I got shows that it's
> *not* obvious. Maybe you should communicate a *bit*
> more about it...
Very good, I will. :-)
> I dont't understand why you are speaking about principles in this
> case.
If you don't make decisions by principle, you are making decisions by
the whim of the moment. Principles are *critical* to maintaining
focus for the long run.
I did not intend to say that you are a liar. I hope I didn't say
anything to make you think I think so. I do think that it was unfair
of you to speak so angrily to me, rather than asking me quietly what I
think.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> a écrit :
> Traroth wrote:
> > The fact is that the answers I got shows that it's
> > *not* obvious. Maybe you should communicate a
> *bit*
> > more about it...
>
> Very good, I will. :-)
Why don't include an regular introduction in Wikimedia
Quarto ? Something like "Principles of Wikimedia" ?
>
> > I dont't understand why you are speaking about
> principles in this
> > case.
>
> If you don't make decisions by principle, you are
> making decisions by
> the whim of the moment. Principles are *critical*
> to maintaining
> focus for the long run.
>
> I did not intend to say that you are a liar. I hope
> I didn't say
> anything to make you think I think so. I do think
> that it was unfair
> of you to speak so angrily to me, rather than asking
> me quietly what I
> think.
Sorry, what I wrote is not understable. What I wanted
to say is : If you let majority decide if ads have to
include or not, I don't understand why you are
speaking about principles.
Advertising is nothing else than selling Wikipedia to
the user.
Traroth wrote:
> Why don't include an regular introduction in Wikimedia
> Quarto ? Something like "Principles of Wikimedia" ?
Good idea!
> Sorry, what I wrote is not understable. What I wanted to say is : If
> you let majority decide if ads have to include or not, I don't
> understand why you are speaking about principles.
The principle is: to best serve our charitable mission while
simultaneously respecting the user.
> Advertising is nothing else than selling Wikipedia to
> the user.
No, it isn't selling Wikipedia to the user at all. Why do you say
that? And, even if it *were* selling Wikipedia to the user, what does
that imply? To me it implies that we should only do it if it helps us
fulfill our charitable goals and if the community wants it.
Keep in mind as we discuss this that I am opposed to having
advertising on Wikipedia. But I think it does not help the case to
make arguments that are not convincing or compelling.
If you want me to list as a *core principle* of Wikipedia "we will
never have advertising no matter what", well, I will not. Putting
- that* as a core principle would be incompatible with all of our other
principles.
--Jimbo