Hi,

Since people asked, I am strongly against a Scheme Foundation.

I believe a foundation is like a company: a power base that drives its
own vision. That vision tends to be a mishmash of key people's technical
and career interests and trendy social causes. All of these motivators
prioritize short-term interests over long-term ones, and there is
tremendous potential for a cabal to form.

The current Scheme cabal (pardon the humor), the Steering Committee,
does not control any assets. This is a very good thing. I believe that
separating asset holders from opinion shapers is key to the long term
health of Scheme. Since I tend to be opinionated, I have deliberately
sought to spread ownership of scheme.org and other projects I'm involved
with to people with a more neutral disposition.

I have suggested a very lightweight formal association in the past for
the sole purpose of holding key assets. (That's mainly domain names such
as scheme.org.) It should not make decisions, pool resources, or
organize work. I still believe it will probably be a good idea at some
point, but its scope must be clearly defined and strictly limited. At
the moment there is neither animosity nor buzz around scheme.org, so we
are not in a rush to strengthen its defenses.

There seems to be some distrust and a lot of miscommunication around
these topics. I for one don't sense any acute threat to Scheme, so file
this under important but not urgent :)

TL;DR: Place assets in neutral hands.