Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> writes:

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

Yes to both. The programs can be as extensive as the members want.
People will probably have better ideas. But here are some I think would
be good:

- hosting for projects/libraries/docs
- virtual talks/discussion groups
- providing infrastructure (build servers, package servers, etc.)
- resources for implementers (sample/reference libraries, test and
  benchmarking suites)
- writing semantics for the standards
- hosting communication channels (besides the existing mailing lists)
- promoting projects (across scheme.org, social media, etc.)
- discoverability (shared search tools across projects/docs)
- encouraging compatibility and connections between Scheme programs and
  their respective maintainers.

Another benefit of the foundation is better survivability of Scheme
projects: if a maintainer is unable to continue on something (like a
reference library, for example), it will be easier to find volunteers in
a foundation, since it would be known who is interested and available.

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

Money doesn't have to be involved. There is just many more opportunities
for nonprofits with some degree of organization.

Here's an example: some universities in the Boston area teach Scheme,
and have clubs dedicated to free software. If I say to them "hey let's
work on Scheme", that's not convincing. If I say "I'm a member of the
Scheme Foundation, we currently have a program to develop libraries X,
Y, and Z, we have meetings in Boston and online at this time every
month, is anyone interested?" that is much better. And then we get more
people into Scheme, who could become key contributors.

> From my POV, what's needed is to acknowledge our existing problems and propose
> convincing ways to solve them.

That's what a foundation does.

I already listed 8 problems in the old thread. My proposal for
addressing them is the foundation.

> 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.

Would it be helpful for someone (me) to write up a sample set of bylaws
and mission statement for people to comment on? Before starting on that,
it would be good to have an idea of who would join and who would fill
the leadership roles, so it can be determined if the idea is feasible in
the first place.

> 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.

Having a bylaw preventing foundation interference in the standards (and
vice-versa) will eliminate that incentive.