Andreas Stötzner

> It's a pity that we still haven't a good terminology

It’s a pity? It’s a task!

I think a little conference of typographers of the relevant countries is in order, to sort these things out. And to arrive at some sort of standard or ‘best-practice’-guidance which is made available to the international font creators community. To make creating Cyrillic sets attractive again

strange, but promising.

the 3 ought to have a shortened middle stroke.
the Z is weird.
the & is quite nice.

Thomas Phinney:
> The hooked f needs an upright form and an italic form.
Right.

> The florin should always be italic, even in an upright font.
Not neccessarily. Although it comes very often in italic fashion by tradition, it works also as an upright glyph. The downswing part is more important than the italic slant.
The florin also occured in blackletter typefaces where it was upright – and worked.
(sorry I have no historic samples at hand right now)
It is similar with the £ sign: needs to get a scripty shaping but *can* be upright the same time. But what really startles me if the ƒ glyph does not reach ascender height like in this font seen here.

Since foundation can also well mean something non-physical, I have no problem with foundry.

fontery – fonters – font makers – ?

Sorry that this may sound a bit discouraging, but this will hardly ever become a suite of quality typefaces picked by designers who know about good type. There are too many  basic mistakes in your glyphs … Also, I can’t see any actual design idea behind your drafts, except that of copying other designs.
Before you herald a big-bang project with brass and pomp, do learning first. Right now you seem to be just on the wrong trail.