Hi, everyone.  (And adding Noel Welsh, who was very involved in projects
like the Scheme Cookbook at the time, although I understand he's now a
Scala bigwig. :)

I appreciate efforts to improve and promote portable Scheme.

In answer to Arthur's question: I have no plans for the Scheme Cookbook.

Two things to know about the old cookbook are that it's very out of
date, and is also PLT-specific (see
"cookbook/wiki/Cookbook_BeingPltSpecific.html").

Regarding being very out of date, I think you'll have to do a lot of
work for it to not be counterproductive, both in how it tells people to
do things, and in the impression it gives of being abandoned long ago.

Regarding being PLT-specific, around the time of the cookbook, a bunch
of us ended up moving from portable Scheme, to focus on and promote PLT
Scheme, which later evolved into Racket.  (PLT had some smart people
with funding, but, had we supported and endorsed something like Gambit
or MIT, at that early juncture, I suppose that other thing might've
become the most popular one.)  Around the time of the cookbook, I recall
Matthias Felleisen as being very interested in and responsive to the
user community, and he directed the grad students.  That started
changing as the students became professors, and then the other people
who'd helped make PLT useful and popular no longer seemed to be listened
to or included like before.  Were I doing a Scheme thing today, it would
be more portable, or at least pick an implementation that's more
meritocracy or democracy than royalty.

If you're starting a new venture in the Scheme space, and it involves
community or any kind of multiple contributors, a suggestion I'd like to
make is that you be very clear about goals/motivations, in whose
interests the work is being done, whether the "community" is something
that is owned/ruled/served/represented/otherwise, etc.  There are many
valid arrangements, so long as people know what they're getting into. 
So I propose that any time we involve a community, especially in modern
dotcom business model times, we should be clear about the nature of
community and leadership/governance.

Neil

Arthur A. Gleckler wrote on 1/21/20 6:30 PM:
> Hello, Jens and Neil.  We're hoping to reach you in case we might
> preserve some of the work you did for the Scheme cookbook.  Please see
> our message to Anton Van Straaten below. We never managed to reach
> him, but we found your names on the Archive.org copy of the Scheme
> cookbook, too.
>
> Do you have any plans for the cookbook yourself, or do you know
> whether the other editors do?
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Arthur A. Gleckler* <xxxxxx@speechcode.com
> <mailto:xxxxxx@speechcode.com>>
> Date: Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM
> Subject: The Scheme Cookbook
> To: Anton Van Straaten <xxxxxx@appsolutions.com
> <mailto:xxxxxx@appsolutions.com>>, Anton Van Straaten
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>>
> Cc: <xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org <mailto:xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org>>
>
>
> First, thank you for all your contributions to Scheme and the Scheme
> community over the years.
>
> A few of us Schemers, organized at xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
> <mailto:xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org> (subscribe
> <https://srfi.schemers.org/scheme-lists-subscribe.html>), recently
> noticed that your Scheme cookbook had fallen off the web.  We're
> interested in preserving it and, ideally, bringing it back to life,
> but we wanted to check with you first in case you have plans for it.
>
> We've managed to retrieve a copy from the Wayback Machine
> <https://archive.org/web/>. It's now hosted at
> https://github.com/schemedoc/cookbook.
>
> Do you have any plans for the cookbook yourself, or do you know
> whether the other editors do?  (Or do you know how to reach the other
> editors?)
>
> On behalf of the folks at Schemedoc (Github
> <https://github.com/schemedoc>), thank you very much.
>
>
> Arthur A. Gleckler,
> SRFI Editor