Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> writes:

> I'm afraid that's mostly red flags from my point of view.
>
> To make a serious proposal, let's get down to concretes:
>
> How will the foundation do the most important job in Scheme: Guaranteeing that
> there will be no more RnRS splits?

That can't ever be guaranteed. Anyone can release a version of Scheme,
and choose to be compatible or not. That would have nothing to do with a
Foundation though, which would not be involved in the standardization
committees.

> Who will lead the foundation? I don't want to do it. None of the best candidates
> I can think of are likely to want to do it. (The best candidates are those with
> the character to be impartial on demand. This skill will have to be exercised
> early and often.)

Whoever wants to be involved can reply here. It would also be a good way
to gauge people's opinions on whether a Foundation should be started,
and if so, ideas for programs, bylaws, etc.

I would be happy to donate towards the start-up costs, and handle
administrative stuff if needed.

> If the foundation will have people "sitting on the board" for "oversight", I
> will actively oppose it.

It can be member-run. And should be. But 3 board members and a director
would still need to be selected, for a US nonprofit at least.