# Interlink Foundation

## Interlink Foundation Whitepaper

**Version:** 0.1 (draft)\
**Last updated:** 2026-03-11\
**Status:** For internal review

{% hint style="info" %}
This draft avoids inventing facts.\
Replace any `[PLACEHOLDER]` with your real values.\
If you share your specifics, I can turn this into a final v1.0.
{% endhint %}

### Abstract

Interlink Foundation is a mission-led organization focused on building and sustaining shared infrastructure.

The Foundation coordinates funding, governance, and standards work.

It exists to reduce duplication, improve interoperability, and keep critical systems reliable.

### Why the Foundation exists

Modern ecosystems depend on shared components.

Many of these components are underfunded and poorly maintained.

Coordination failures create fragmentation, security risk, and vendor lock-in.

Interlink Foundation addresses these issues by:

* Funding and maintaining critical public goods.
* Setting open standards and reference implementations.
* Creating neutral governance for cross-organization collaboration.
* Measuring outcomes and publishing transparent reports.

### Problem statement

#### Underinvestment in public goods

Open infrastructure often has diffuse benefits.

Costs are concentrated on a few teams.

This leads to brittle dependencies and burnout.

#### Fragmented standards

Teams ship incompatible solutions.

Users pay integration costs repeatedly.

Interoperability lags behind ecosystem growth.

#### Trust and neutrality gaps

Single-vendor control can block adoption.

Users want predictable rules and continuity.

Neutral stewardship increases confidence.

### Vision and goals

#### Vision

A healthy ecosystem of interoperable tools and services.

Shared infrastructure is well-funded, secure, and easy to adopt.

#### Goals (12–24 months)

* Establish a durable governance and funding model.
* Launch a transparent grants and maintenance program.
* Publish core standards and adoption guidelines.
* Build a contributor and partner network across sectors.

#### Non-goals

* Competing with commercial products.
* Creating closed standards or exclusive partnerships.
* Operating as a single-team “platform owner”.

### Principles

* **Openness:** standards, processes, and outputs are public by default.
* **Interoperability first:** optimize for integration and portability.
* **Security as a baseline:** treat security work as maintenance, not a feature.
* **Neutral governance:** decisions are explainable and contestable.
* **Sustainability:** fund operations and maintenance, not only new builds.
* **Measurable impact:** track adoption, reliability, and ecosystem health.

### Scope

The Foundation’s scope is defined by a maintained “Scope Charter”.

This whitepaper covers the initial operating model.

#### In scope (initial)

* Standards and specs for interoperability.
* Reference implementations and test suites.
* Security reviews and coordinated disclosure support.
* Maintenance funding for critical dependencies.
* Developer education and ecosystem tooling.

#### Out of scope (initial)

* Direct operation of production customer workloads.
* Exclusive vendor programs.
* Private standards restricted to members.

### Operating model

#### Programs

**1) Standards program**

Publishes specs, conformance tests, and compatibility guidance.

Outputs are versioned and change-controlled.

\[PLACEHOLDER: list initial standards areas, e.g. “identity”, “data formats”, “protocols”.]

**2) Grants and maintenance program**

Funds maintainers and critical workstreams.

Prioritizes reliability, security, and long-term support.

Grant categories:

* **Maintenance grants:** keep existing projects healthy.
* **Security grants:** audits, fuzzing, patching, disclosure support.
* **Interoperability grants:** adapters, compatibility layers, test suites.
* **Research grants:** prototypes and pre-standard exploration.

**3) Ecosystem program**

Supports adoption through education and integrations.

Focuses on documentation, tooling, and partner enablement.

#### How work is selected

Selection uses transparent criteria:

* Ecosystem criticality.
* User impact and adoption potential.
* Security and reliability risk reduction.
* Feasibility and maintainer capacity.
* Avoiding duplication of existing efforts.

Each funded initiative publishes:

* A charter and success metrics.
* A public timeline and progress updates.
* A post-mortem or final report.

### Governance

This section defines roles and decision-making.

It is designed to be neutral and auditable.

#### Bodies and roles

* **Board:** fiduciary oversight, budget approval, executive hiring.
* **Steering Committee:** strategy, program priorities, conflict resolution.
* **Working Groups:** domain decisions, specs, and implementation plans.
* **Maintainers Council (optional):** maintainer feedback and escalation path.

\[PLACEHOLDER: insert your real governance structure and names only if you publish them.]

#### Decision process

Working groups aim for rough consensus.

When consensus fails, escalation paths are explicit.

All decisions should have:

* A written proposal.
* Recorded objections.
* A final rationale.

#### Conflict of interest

Members disclose employment and financial interests.

Voting rules handle conflicted participants.

COI policy is published and enforced.

### Transparency and reporting

The Foundation publishes:

* Quarterly program updates.
* Annual impact report and audited financials.
* Grants awarded, amounts, and deliverables.
* Standards changelogs and governance decisions.

{% hint style="warning" %}
If you need private-by-default reporting, state that explicitly here.\
Otherwise, assume public-by-default.
{% endhint %}

### Funding model

Interlink Foundation is funded through diversified sources.

This reduces capture risk and improves stability.

#### Funding sources

* Donations and sponsorships.
* Membership dues (if applicable).
* Grants from institutions.
* Program-specific restricted funding (with guardrails).

\[PLACEHOLDER: specify whether you have membership tiers, benefits, and pricing.]

#### Budget allocation (guidelines)

Allocate funding across:

* Maintenance and security work.
* Standards development and testing.
* Operations and compliance.
* Community and ecosystem support.

\[PLACEHOLDER: insert target percentages only if you have them.]

### Technical strategy (reference architecture)

This whitepaper stays tech-neutral unless you specify a stack.

Use this section to describe what “interoperability” means in practice.

#### Interoperability layers

* **Data:** canonical formats, schemas, and versioning rules.
* **APIs and protocols:** stable contracts and deprecation policy.
* **Identity and trust:** authentication, authorization, and key management.
* **Conformance:** test suites, certification, and compatibility matrices.

#### Artifacts to publish

* Specifications with clear normative language.
* Reference implementations that are minimal and readable.
* Conformance tests that run in CI.
* Threat models and security guidance.

#### Compatibility policy

Define:

* Versioning scheme.
* Deprecation windows.
* Backward compatibility expectations.

\[PLACEHOLDER: state your policy, e.g. SemVer + 12-month deprecation window.]

### Security model

Security is treated as a first-class maintenance activity.

#### Practices

* Coordinated vulnerability disclosure process.
* Security advisories and patch timelines.
* Dependency monitoring and SBOM support where relevant.
* Regular audits for critical components.

\[PLACEHOLDER: add your security contact and disclosure channel.]

### Legal and compliance

The Foundation maintains baseline compliance.

This includes contracts, IP policy, and license hygiene.

#### IP and licensing

Prefer permissive, widely adopted licenses where appropriate.

Ensure contributor agreements are clear and minimal.

\[PLACEHOLDER: state CLA/DCO approach, trademarks policy, and license policy.]

### Community and participation

Interlink Foundation succeeds through contributors and partners.

#### Ways to participate

* Join a working group.
* Contribute to specs or implementations.
* Apply for funding or maintenance support.
* Provide feedback through public issues and RFCs.

\[PLACEHOLDER: add links to your repo, forums, and meeting cadence.]

#### Code of conduct

The Foundation enforces a clear code of conduct.

It protects contributors and users.

\[PLACEHOLDER: add your CoC link and enforcement contact.]

### Roadmap

This is a suggested sequencing.

Replace milestones with your real plan.

#### Phase 1: Setup (0–3 months)

* Finalize charter and governance.
* Publish initial scope and principles.
* Stand up working groups.
* Launch basic grants intake and review process.

#### Phase 2: Delivery (3–9 months)

* Publish first standards drafts and conformance tests.
* Fund first maintenance and security grants.
* Release reference implementations.
* Publish first quarterly report.

#### Phase 3: Scale (9–24 months)

* Expand standards coverage based on adoption.
* Establish certification or conformance badges (optional).
* Deepen partner network and long-term funding commitments.
* Publish annual impact report and audited financials.

### Risks and mitigations

#### Capture risk

Mitigation: diversified funding and COI enforcement.

#### Fragmentation risk

Mitigation: clear compatibility policy and conformance tooling.

#### Maintainer overload

Mitigation: pay for maintenance and improve triage workflows.

#### Security incidents

Mitigation: disclosure process, audits, and response playbooks.

### Appendix

#### Glossary

* **Public goods:** assets with broad benefits and shared usage.
* **Conformance:** ability to meet a published spec via tests.
* **Reference implementation:** minimal implementation used to validate a spec.

#### Changelog

* **0.1 (2026-03-11):** Initial draft structure and operating model.