>     I suppose R4RS and earlier standards
>     were not included because there are no actively maintained
>     implementation of those today?
>
> We should definitely include them.

That raises the question of who maintains the website for an RnRS
standard. Since each standard is the work of a particular group of
people, ideally those people would host their own website and have full
control over it. However, people who have finished a standard are often
happy to move on to other activities and rarely have the stamina to
return to it year after year. From that standpoint, it would be better
if the RnRS sites are maintained by volunteers who work by consensus,
similar to "doc" and many of the other subdomains.