Interlink Foundation

Mission, scope, governance, and operating model for the Interlink Foundation.

Interlink Foundation Whitepaper

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

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.

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.

If you need private-by-default reporting, state that explicitly here. Otherwise, assume public-by-default.

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.