> You will have a hierarchy whether you like it or not. The question
> here seems to be whether you will design one formally and explicitly
> or keep the informal ad-hoc hierarchy that is in place at the moment.

I believe Scheme's organizational problems are solved by hub-and-spoke
models where the spokes are opinionated and the hub is neutral.

SRFI is like this. Authors are opinionated; the Editor is neutral.

Scheme.org has a neutral kernel and the subdomains are (very mildly)
opinionated. More broadly, other Scheme websites are opinionated and
scheme.org should be like a sum or an average of those opinions.

RnRS should have Scheme implementers as spokes and a neutral mediator as
the hub. R6RS and R7RS divided the community because the hub was
opinionated. R7RS-large attempts to be more neutral.

Most people find it hard to be neutral in a position where money and
influence are up for grabs. While we could take pains to create a
neutral Foundation, I expect it will disproportionately attract
self-serving people. Keeping RnRS neutral, where everyone operates at a
financial loss, has already proven to be an almost inhuman feat.

Antero points out that Scheme projects tend to have a low truck number,
but so does any position requiring impartiality. Few have what it takes.
It's best not to multiply such positions without a good reason to do so.

 From a hierarchy standpoint, a hub-and-spokes model has the advantage
that it is very flat. Most programmers love this. An issue is that the
burden of communication falls on the hub. This person has to be a good
communicator with strong empathy. Arthur has done a great job with SRFI.