In my opinion, this is a worthwhile thing, although you need to clarify how much emphasis you give to the "server" in "server side swift".
As I have mentioned before, I'm very unhappy with the mass of feature disparity and the difference of semantics. The sad thing is, the gap is growing instead of shrinking – despite the warm words written on, e.g., https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/blob/main/README.md:
Our primary goal is to achieve implementation parity with Foundation on Apple platforms. This will help to enable the overall Swift goal of portability .
This is just not true, especially if you hop over to the issue tracker and take a look at how the community contributions get "considered".
I think the main problem is that many people in the "Server-side Swift" community seem to take the "server" very seriously, thus completely ignoring developers who want to write cross-platform software that does not necessarily do "server" things.
Yes, you can continue to tell me "Don't use Foundation on Linux", but this is bad joke, if I want the core libraries of my APPLE apps to also run on !APPLE devices.
So… yes, making the gap more visible is surely a good thing. Will it help? Probably not. Apple has their own Agenda here and seem to ignore features that they do not need.
Which really is a shame, since Swift has so much potential, in particular on Linux and embedded systems.