> 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.

Our existing infrastructure (RnRS, SRFI, Scheme.org) does those on a
shoestring budget.

> 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.

We already have many avenues for this. Things could be better organized,
but the main problem is we don't have enough people.

> 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.

I doubt this attracts the right kind of person.

>>  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'm not convinced it can do a good job.

The most important problem in Scheme is healing the RnRS split and
ensuring we have no future splits. Propose a convincing solution and
many of our best people will listen.

Scheme.org was created as just an aggregator. It does not set a vision,
direct people, or control resources other than its own domain name. You
propose a power structure that handles money and publicity, sets a
vision, and makes ties to academia and industry. I'd expect this to be
the most effective way to sow distrust among our best people.

> 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.

Any institution that sets a vision for Scheme has to convince people
from the old guard and find an impartial leader. We have recurring
problems with these goals, even with no money or publicity involved.

>> 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.

I don't believe it.