What do you like about it?
I think the important features of SQLite from the Scheme perspective are:
1) It is dynamically typed, unlike almost all other RDBMSes, and thus well-matched with Scheme.
2) It is zero-config and serverless (in the sense of there being no server at all, not in the sense of a server that someone else administers). This matches the typical scale of a Scheme project.
3) Because the databases are just single files, database permissions are aligned with Posix permissions. There is no need for a completely separate user management system, which usually ends up being more of an impediment than an asset. For the same reason, the database files are highly transportable; they can even be checked into version-control systems as binary artifacts.
Of course it is not the be-all and end-all of RDBMSes, and it does require a certain amount of special-purpose or general-purpose FFI, unlike other RDBMSes that you can talk to over the network directly (provided the protocol is well-documented). I certainly don't reject the idea of a general-purpose ODBC-based SRFI, but it will be considerably more complicated to implement.
Databases come and go, and SQLite appears to have a low bus factor
The bus factor is 2, but <https://peerj.com/preprints/1233/
> shows that of 133 widely-used GitHub projects, 60% have a bus factor <= 2, and 90% are <= 10. For that matters, most Schemes have a BF of 1, and so does R7RS-large, I regret to say.
and suffers from political maladroitness,
If you mean the Rule of St. Benedict flap, they no longer use that as a CoC, and have in fact adopted the Mozilla CoC. All projects make political blunders from time to time.
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan email@example.com
You're a brave man! Go and break through the lines, and remember while
you're out there risking life and limb through shot and shell,
we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly