A non-profit initiative in development
Intertween is an independent initiative founded by Daniel Kvist. The proposed model is a neutral steward, with the open specification kept separate from commercial services and implementations.
Contact Daniel KvistFive roles, five distinct responsibilities
Creator, contributor, custodian, rights holder and beneficiary remain separate. Registering an object does not establish ownership. A checksum shows unchanged bytes, not who owns the content.
Local mandates and assessments remain authoritative. Shared knowledge supports a more informed independent decision.
Responsibility over time
A correction can matter after its reviewer has left their role. The proposal therefore separates the contribution, personal identity, mandate and any entitlements. New actions require a valid mandate. Evidence for past decisions may need to be retained under restricted access while disclosure is reviewed. A review date is not an automatic deletion order.
Communities decide on reciprocity
A community may wish to recognise contributions, share experience or agree to return some benefits to shared work. Such rules need to be voluntary, understandable and open to challenge. Withholding identity does not cancel valid claims. Many reuses alone establish neither economic value nor a right to payment.
Lifecycle governance and protected claim handling are proposed functions that remain to be built and tested. Cultivator is a future component; no shared compensation scheme is implemented. Legal, governance and allocation rules need review before financial reciprocity can be tested. Read the architecture proposal ↗
Freedom to change, component by component
Documented export of objects, relationships, rights, provenance and audit history is a requirement of the proposed model. Changing a supplier should not mean losing the context of the knowledge.
Complete export and exit remain a separate conformance surface to test. The current validator does not establish that capability.
Having no assigned owner is a state too
an intertween makes knowledge between mandates visible. Responsibility emerges when an actor changes its mandate to address the matter; the system does not assign an owner at detection.
Responsibility when methods change
Proposing, evaluating, authorising, operating and stopping a method are distinct responsibilities. They supplement creator, custodian and rights-holder roles. A shared insight may have no single owner; applying a skill still requires responsibility.
An evaluation applies to a defined context and does not automatically authorise use. A challenge needs a route to reassessment. Recording it does not establish that a system was paused or changed.