> That would have nothing to do with a
> Foundation though, which would not be involved in the standardization
> committees.

> 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.

That sounds better. But when its scope is narrowed like that, it's not
clear to me what the foundation would do that isn't done now.

Do you envision it primarily for distributing money and/or holding
assets? (I guess organizing events involves both.)

If the foundation runs development programs, how are those different
from what we do now? Paying money?

 From my POV, what's needed is to acknowledge our existing problems and
propose convincing ways to solve them. We have talented and dedicated
people working on this and good proposals are still few and far between.
It's an enormously hard multi-disciplinary problem.

A common attitude among schemers is, "This approach (which just so
happens to be my favorite) represents Scheme. Other approaches are of no
consequence, it's annoying that they exist." I expect a new, more formal
power structure to amplify this already severe problem.