Excellent proposal. We can also develop a grading system based on certain criteria available before, during and after launch. A score out of 100 based on things like source code availability, compiled clients, supported exchanges, forking history, testnet etc etc.
That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.
This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms that have yet to be developed.
I would like to recommend the foundation consider a wiki system, in order to quickly produce an immediately useful resource.
Lock down editing of the home page, and use that to present the matrix information.
Link from the home page to sub-pages for individual coins and global concepts (PoW, PoS, PoB, etc...). Create a required template of information for all individual coins (covering the criteria you with to present on the main page).
Neutral point of view should be the content policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewModeration overhead will be heavy, but directly proportionate the challenge of the Foundation itself. Elected foundation members can serve as content moderators. I would donate to see this get off the ground.