Partnership Framework

1Purpose & Scope

LinkScape's mission — bringing open-source and AI capability to students and communities with limited exposure — is multiplied by the right partners: universities that host workshops, tech companies that contribute compute or mentorship, and nonprofits that reach beneficiaries we cannot reach alone. This framework defines who we partner with, on what terms, how we vet them, and how formal commitments are made. It exists to let a small youth-led team say yes to good partnerships quickly and no to misaligned ones cleanly.

This document governs external partnerships only. Individual member recruitment (PP-03), vendor purchasing (F-06, O-08), and donations (F-04) are handled by their own policies, though a single organization may relate to us through more than one of these at once.

2Legal Standing (Read First)

LinkScape is not a separate legal entity. It is a fiscally sponsored project of The Hack Foundation dba Hack Club, a 501(c)(3). LinkScape therefore cannot itself sign a binding contract, hold funds, or take on legal obligations.

• Any partnership that creates a legal or financial obligation — a signed agreement, a commitment of funds, transfer of assets, or IP terms — must route through Hack Club as fiscal sponsor. See G-06 HCB Fiscal Sponsorship for the mechanism and approval path.
• All funds associated with a partnership (grants, sponsorship, in-kind value that touches money) flow through Hack Club Bank (HCB). LinkScape has no separate bank account.
• Informal collaboration (co-hosting a workshop, cross-promotion, a mentor volunteering their time) does not always require a signed agreement, but the CEO decides where the line falls and errs toward routing anything with obligations through the sponsor.
• The partnership agreement template in Section 5 is a starting point only; final legal form and signature authority sit with Hack Club, not LinkScape.

Legal-review flag: no draft in this framework is executed until Hack Club has reviewed and signed as fiscal sponsor. Treat every "agreement" here as a proposal to the sponsor, not a contract LinkScape can conclude on its own.

3Partnership Criteria

Every prospective partner is assessed against baseline criteria that apply to all partners, then against criteria specific to their type. A partner must clear all baseline criteria to proceed.

3.1Baseline (all partners)

• Mission alignment — the partnership advances AI/open-source access for underexposed learners, not merely LinkScape's visibility.
• Values fit — the partner's conduct is compatible with G-01 Mission/Vision/Values and PP-01 Code of Conduct.
• Youth safety — because some members and beneficiaries are minors, any partner interacting with them must accept our youth-safety expectations; safety concerns are owned by the CFO.
• Openness — a preference for open-source outcomes (E-06); closed or extractive arrangements carry a high bar.
• No unmanaged conflict of interest — screened under G-05; any conflict is disclosed and managed before proceeding.
• Feasible for a small team — the commitment is sustainable for ~10 volunteers without over-promising.

3.2Academic institutions

• Clear educational benefit to students (workshop venues, research collaboration, access to learners).
• Named faculty or staff sponsor accountable on their side.
• Research collaborations comply with E-03 Research Ethics and, where human data is involved, E-02 Data Privacy.
• Authorship, data, and IP expectations stated up front (ties to PP-02 IP Assignment and Section 5).

3.3Tech companies

• Contribution is concrete: compute, credits, mentorship, tooling, or funding — not solely brand association.
• No strings that compromise independence, open-source default, or youth safety.
• Compute contributions are integrated and governed under F-03 Compute Resource Usage and S-01 Access Control; access remains tiered and logged.
• Any funding or in-kind value with monetary substance is disclosed to and processed through HCB (G-06, F-04).

3.4Nonprofits

• Complementary reach — the partner connects us to beneficiaries or communities we cannot reach directly.
• Shared or compatible mission and comparable safeguarding standards for minors.
• Clear division of responsibility so neither side over-commits volunteer capacity.
• Where funds move between organizations, the fiscal-sponsor path (G-06) governs.

4Roles & Authority

5Partnership Agreement Template

The following is LinkScape's standard partnership outline. It is prepared by the CEO, reviewed internally, then submitted to Hack Club for legal review and signature. Fields left blank are completed per partnership; unknown values remain blank rather than being invented.

6Evaluation Process

Partnerships are evaluated at three points: before entry, during the relationship, and at renewal or exit.

1. Intake — CEO logs the prospect in Notion and screens it against baseline and type-specific criteria (Section 3).
2. Due diligence — check values fit, conflicts (G-05), youth-safety implications (CFO), and any technical/compute implications (CTO).
3. Terms & sponsor routing — draft the agreement from the Section 5 template; anything binding goes to Hack Club per G-06 before any commitment is communicated externally.
4. Kickoff — on sign-off, the PM sets up the operational plan and success criteria drawn from I-02 Impact Measurement.
5. Ongoing review — the PM checks deliverables and relationship health at each agreed checkpoint; issues touching safety escalate to the CFO immediately.
6. Renewal or exit — before term end, the CEO and PM assess whether the partnership met its purpose and recommend renew, revise, or close; closure follows the termination terms and notifies Hack Club.

7Success Criteria & Reporting

A partnership is judged on the value it delivered to beneficiaries and to LinkScape's mission, not on its prestige. Metrics are defined in I-02 and evaluated through I-04 Program Evaluation where the partnership produced a program.

• Beneficiary value — did the partnership expand reach or capability for underexposed learners?
• Reciprocity — did both sides receive what was agreed?
• Integrity — did the partnership stay within our values, openness default, and youth-safety expectations?
• Sustainability — was the commitment manageable for the team, and is it worth continuing?

Cross-reference: this framework operates entirely within the constraints of G-06 HCB Fiscal Sponsorship. Where the two documents appear to conflict on legal or financial authority, G-06 governs.

Approval and Adoption

Adopted upon signature by the officers below. Pending ratification at Sprint 0 (see LS-REG-001).

Document Maintenance Log