In OSS scientific software, many PhDs have management jobs, where they write a couple of grand sounding fantasy roadmaps and have creative people who report to them. Printing money basically.
(As someone who has sat in various pre-selection committees over the last 15 years, i.e. without a final say on who gets funded and who doesn't, I can also add that sometimes the best applications don't get funded, and average or even mediocre ones get funded instead).
And yes, in every organizations, being research or not, you will inevitably have people who end up in management and manage people who do most of the creative work. Does this mean that these managers are (or become) incompetent or useless ? I don't think so.
(For background information on this specific topic, on can (re)read The Pratice of Management by Peter Drucker (1954) ( https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/48018.The_Practice_of... -> "“The manager is the dynamic, life-giving element in every business” who defines the organization’s mission, develops and retains productive teams, coordinates various activities, sets goals, and gets things done.").
At best this self-glorification applies to physical work like an Amazon distribution center, where one indeed needs direct people skills of a certain kind.
It applies less to intellectual endeavors in general.
It does not apply at all to software development, where a plethora of successful projects proves the direct opposite. It happens, of course, that projects succeed despite the manager, who still gets the credit.
Fred Brooks' works apply to software, not Peter Drucker's.
Yeah... but why? What attribute do you think is unique to people with PhDs?
Regarding projects which receive a grant, holding a PhD does not matter.
What a Phd recognizes, and is relevant to the project at hand, is the ability "to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge".
(Per Wikipedia: "Because it is an earned research degree, those studying for a PhD are required to produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge, normally in the form of a thesis or dissertation, and defend their work against experts in the field. The completion of a PhD is often a requirement for employment as [...] a scientist in many fields.")
If you know this, and know that people without one can still produce original research that expands the boundaries of knowledge (even giving your own examples) then why do you require one?
Moreover, as it is a voluntary function, no one is harmed financially by this constraint.
If this foundation does not have such an overhead and will never create cozy director posts, cozy diversity officer posts etc., then this is a huge credibility boost and I'd mention it on the website (with the explicit promise!).
But then the foundation has to stick with it and not stealthily sneak in CoCs and people after a while.