> If I would need to setup server then it's useless to me, I wanted something
> that would not require to pay for anything, so the service will not be lost
> after my death. I wanted something that will still exists after I'm dead.

We should think about offering hosting to Scheme implementations. Most
implementations' sites are reasonably low-traffic and lightweight, so a
cheap server with nginx could probably handle many sites.

We currently have only one server (one of the cheapest reputable
commercial VPS). It currently only hosts "community" sites (i.e. sites
that volunteers are making to cover all of Scheme, not just one
implementation).

Arthur, do you think we could we add implementation sites to that server
or is there a point to separating implementation sites to their own servers?

I think the charter of Scheme.org doesn't need to say how the servers
are handled, but in practice, it would be good to think of a clear policy.

Would implementers trust having their sites on the same server as
community sites?

> I think that simple redirect is fine then, the problem with domain is that
> the only useful if it stick to the address. Right now those two
> implementation are kind of use useless (the domain names). If you just want to
> have same link to that implementation then setup l.scheme.org with url
> shortener would provide the same benefot.

The point of having a subdomain for everything is on the one hand to
make Scheme.org more consistent for users and admins, and on the other
hand to entice implementations to have a presence under Scheme.org, even
if it's just a name (subdomain with redirect).

Making a subdomain is a small hassle to implementers, and having a
simple link to an external site would be easier. My personal opinion is
that we should think of Scheme.org like a long-term investment, that
cannot succeed if we don't get people at least a little bit invested in
it as a community. There should be at least a little give-and-take, and
adding a subdomain is pretty minimal as far as investments go. This
opinion may be somewhat unpopular, especially since it makes more work
in the short term, but it seems to me like it would make sense
long-term. What do you think?

> The only benefit I see for domain is SEO and that it looks nice. But just
> redirect is kind of pointless.
>
> But if you decide that this is how all implementations will work then I'm
> fine with just redirect. But you need to know that it's good only for
> scheme.org to organize the structure it probably will of no use for the
> implementer, because he will not get even a link to his site so it will not
> benefit SEO at all.

Thanks. This is very good advice. So search engines consider only the
target address of the redirect, not the source address.