Dear Belinda, Pankaj Sharma, and Wikimedia community members, Greetings from Maithili Wikimedians User Group.
We have followed the recent discussion regarding the Wikimedia SAARC Conference 2026 proposal, the concerns raised on the Wikimedia mailing lists, and the responses shared by community members and Wikimedia Foundation representatives. At the outset, we would like to clarify an important point: Pankaj Sharma is not associated with Maithili Wikimedians User Group and does not represent Maithili Wikimedians User Group in any official capacity. Any comments, questions, or concerns shared by him in this thread should be understood as his personal views and not as an official position of Maithili Wikimedians User Group. Maithili Wikimedians User Group respects the openness of Wikimedia mailing lists and the right of individual Wikimedians to raise questions in community spaces. However, we also believe it is important to avoid confusion regarding organizational representation, especially when discussions involve grant proposals, regional conferences, institutional accountability, and community decision-making processes. Our group remains committed to constructive engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation, the Conference Fund Committee, South Asian Wikimedia communities, and the broader movement. While the rejection of the SAARC Conference proposal was naturally disappointing, we value transparent dialogue and remain open to learning from the feedback received. We are also committed to strengthening our organizational capacity, improving future proposals, and contributing positively to regional collaboration in South Asia. We kindly request all participants in this discussion to distinguish between individual opinions and official communication from Maithili Wikimedians User Group. Any official statement from our group will be shared through authorized representatives or official communication channels of the User Group. We appreciate the encouragement and constructive comments shared by community members and look forward to continuing meaningful collaboration for the growth of Wikimedia communities in Nepal, Maithili-language projects, and the wider South Asian region. Regards, Pankaj Kumar Deo Chair Maithili Wikimedians User Group On Thu, 30 Apr 2026, 14:10 Pankaj Sharma via Wikimedia-l, < [email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate your kind words Rocky, and I understand the spirit behind > your encouragement. However we as a community feel compelled to express > some concerns that continue to weigh heavily on us. > > While your message acknowledges the effort we’ve put into the proposal, I > want to be clear that the discouragement comes not just from the rejection, > but from the lack of transparency and fairness in the decision-making > process. As you rightly mentioned, many regions already have established > conferences, but South Asia is still in the early stages. That's exactly > why our proposed SAARC Conference was so important. > > The last SAARC conference was held in 2019 organized by CIS, but since > then no initiatives have been taken to host another one. When our > community finally took the step to revive this effort, the proposal was > rejected. The main reason cited by the committee was: > > * "One of the main factors in the committee’s decision is the close > connection between WikiConference India and a potential SAARC Conference. > Given the current uncertainties surrounding WikiConference India (due to > the recently rejected FCRA license for CIS), the committee believes it > would be best to focus on resolving that situation before considering > funding for an additional large conference in the region."* > > This reasoning raises several important questions, which I’ve also raised > in my previous email. Why were we asked to solve the internal issues of an > organization in India? We are just a volunteer-led community, not paid > employees. > > Additionally, our emails to the India mailing list have been rejected by > some of the same people involved in the decision-making process. This gives > the impression that discussion is being suppressed, and that the voices of > the volunteer community are being ignored. It feels like the foundation is > preventing these critical issues from being discussed with the broader > community. > > Belinda, as I mentioned before, I shared a set of questions regarding > transparency and clarifications in an email on 18th April. Unfortunately > I have not yet received any responses. We hope Belinda, you will respond > to these questions on this email. > > Furthermore, we have come to know that CIS is now the International > Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad. What surprised us even more > is that the director board members for both organizations are the same. Is > there a potential conflict of interest or undue influence in how proposals > from these institutions are being evaluated? > > We have also observed that proposals with institutional backing seem to > receive faster approval and less scrutiny than others, despite having > similar goals and target audiences. A recent example is the renamed Open > Knowledge Conference, which was approved with minimal questioning and > without addressing the concerns raised by the community. > > This is particularly striking considering that the grantees of this event > have close ties to the Wikimedia Foundation, with some having previously > served as grant officers at Wikimedia Foundation. It raises important > questions about the evaluation process and whether such prior relationships > might be influencing the way proposals are reviewed. If these relationships > are playing a role, it could result in a situation where proposals from > institutional bodies are approved quickly and with less scrutiny, while > volunteer-led proposals like ours face more stringent questioning. > > We believe that these issues need to be addressed in order to ensure a > fair future for all proposals, regardless of whether they are led by > volunteers or institutions. > > We look forward to hearing your responses to these concerns and to > understanding the rationale behind these decisions. > > Pankaj > > On Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 8:49 PM, Belinda Mbambo via > WikimediaIndia-l <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Pankaj, > > Replying here in addition to the conversation you started directly with > us. > > We understand a rejection of any proposal is a disappointing outcome and > we work with a certain set of criterias, processes and resources. As was > shared > on wiki, > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026#c-CKibelka_(WMF)-20250319155900-Decision_on_the_Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026_proposal> > the conference committee - made up of Wikimedians - did not approve the > conference for a range of reasons. > > We work closely with the Conference Committee > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference_Grants/Committee> who, > together with inputs gathered from multiple discussions with the grantee, > arrive at the funding conclusions. On the same pages you will find the > timelines, stages, process and be able to review past proposals and > reports. > > It was suggested to build capacity and expertise of the team before > scaling up to large regional events. This approach would better align with > the Maithili Wikimedians’ track record in event organization and grant > management. > > I know others have also enquired about this process - more information can > be found here on meta-wiki > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements> > . > > There are some basic eligibility criteria > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements> > to apply for a Conference Fund, we use these parameters to ensure funds are > disbursed to those who have past experience with managing a large fund > and/or conference, the past record, no pending reports and/or work with a > Fiscal Sponsor who fulfills some of these requirements. > > Furthermore, there are multiple factors that are considered (along with > the above) which differ in each round (external situation, available > resources, assessment of all submissions) and emerging community needs and > strategy. > > A rejection is always supported by suggestions on steps which could be > taken to address any identified improvements, if applicable. You can find > the responses to all recent proposals > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/Browse_applications#> > on their talk page. > > Best, > Belinda > > > *Belinda Mbambo* > Senior Manager: Global Movement Communications > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 7:31 AM Masum al Hasan via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Pankaj, >> >> I understand that the outcome must be disappointing, especially after the >> effort invested in preparing the proposal. Please do not feel discouraged. >> >> Many regions already have established regional conferences, and South >> Asia is still working toward that milestone. In that context, the >> initiative taken by the Maithili Wikimedia community is both significant >> and commendable. Even though the proposal was not funded this time, the >> effort itself carries substantial value. >> >> I would like to sincerely appreciate the Maithili Wikimedians for taking >> this important first step. This should not be viewed as a failure, but >> rather as the beginning of a larger and more ambitious journey. Such >> initiatives often lay the groundwork for future success, and this effort >> will certainly be remembered as a pioneering one. >> >> Best, >> Rocky >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 4:46 PM Pankaj Sharma via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Butch, Arvind, Николай, DR and Lane for the thoughtful >>> responses and for sharing additional perspectives related to this matter. I >>> would like to follow up to clarify a few points and to raise some concerns >>> that remain unresolved from the earlier discussion. >>> >>> Our community proposal to organize the SAARC Conference in Nepal for >>> 2026 >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>> was declined, with one of the key reasons stated at talk page as: *"One >>> of the main factors in the committee’s decision is the close connection >>> between WikiConference India and a potential SAARC Conference."* >>> Additionally, we were advised that *"Given the current uncertainties >>> surrounding WikiConference India (due to the recently rejected FCRA license >>> for CIS), the committee believes it would be best to focus on resolving >>> that situation before considering funding for an additional large >>> conference in the region."* >>> >>> Our SAARC proposal was rejected due to uncertainties in India and >>> concerns about overlap, it is surprising to observe that another proposal, >>> Open Knowledge Conference was approved today without proper scrutiny, >>> despite being closely related in scope, audience, and regional context. Our >>> proposal had lot of questions asked for and the recent approved grant got >>> approved surprisingly without any questions asked by the committee. Why >>> for we volunteers there was lots of questioning but when the proposal is >>> from a institutions under a staff role there is no question asked? This >>> raises an important question about consistency in decision-making. We >>> noticed in the committee's feedback that the Open Knowledge Conference is >>> described as "*an iteration of a recurring event."* But we have been >>> unable to identify previous editions of this event under the same name. At >>> the same time there has been discussion on the talk page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Open_Knowledge_Conference> >>> about the proposal previously being framed as a "*Wikimedia Technical >>> Summit" *before being renamed. This raises an important question: if >>> this is indeed a recurring event could the committee clarify under what >>> name and format previous iterations were held? Additionally what was the >>> rationale for the change in naming and how does this relate to the >>> continuity being referenced in the evaluation ? >>> >>> If the uncertainty around WikiConference in India and regulatory >>> challenges were significant enough to halt our proposal entirely why were >>> similar concerns not applied when evaluating proposals emerging from the >>> same team at International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad? >>> Is this difference in treatment influenced by the fact that our >>> proposal led by the community volunteers, while proposals from the >>> International Institute of Information Technology are being submitted in a >>> staff or institutional capacity ? >>> >>> The argument of *close connection* between events also appears to have >>> been applied selectively. In our case it was a decisive reason for >>> rejection. However in other instances where thematic and organizational >>> overlap is evident, this concern does not seem to have been given the same >>> weight. >>> >>> This raises a fundamental question pointing: >>> >>> *Why should our proposal be affected by regulatory or organizational >>> problems in another country? **What about the close connection for >>> proposal for WikiConference India 2026and Open Knowledge Conference?* >>> >>> We want to share that the WikiConference India 2026 and the Open >>> Knowledge Conference are scheduled within a span of approximately two >>> months, while our rejected proposal of Wikimedia SAARC Conference 2026 >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>> and WikiConference India 2025 >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/WikiConference_India_2025> >>> had a gap of 10 months. Which one is here overlapping, SAARC or Open >>> Knowledge Conference ! >>> >>> We note that Nepal was encouraged to scale down and build experience >>> through smaller events. It is very much discouraging to see differing >>> standards applied when other entities are getting multiple large-scale >>> grants with overlapping goals and participants without any discussions or >>> questions. >>> >>> We respectfully ask to WMF and the community: >>> >>> 1. How are overlap and regional connection being defined and applied >>> across different proposals ? >>> 2. Why were external factors in one country used to delay or reject >>> a proposal from another.? >>> 3. What measures are in place to ensure equitable and consistent >>> evaluation for both volunteer-led and staff-led proposals ? >>> >>> >>> Our community strongly believe that all communities regardless of size >>> or geography should be given a fair opportunity to grow and contribute. >>> >>> We request to have an committee to investigate all the previous and >>> on-going grant proposals from this institution and make the process >>> more transparent. We hope this can open a constructive and transparent >>> dialogue toward greater accountability and consistency in decision-making >>> process and allocation of funds to the communities. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pankaj >>> >>> On Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 at 3:18 AM, Pankaj Sharma < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The community proposal to host the regional SAARC Conference in 2026 in >>> Nepal >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>> was declined. The reasons provided was the event would be redundant and an >>> unnecessary expense because a similar conference is planned in India in the >>> year of 2025. However in 2025 conference in India didn't happened and >>> surprisingly our proposal was declined beacuse of that. But why.!!! >>> >>> While Nepal’s proposal was viewed with skepticism regarding our >>> capacity, the 2025 conference in India failed to materialize due to a >>> failure in financial management and a lack of understanding regarding local >>> FCRA regulations in India. This resulted in a substantial huge waste of >>> Wikimedia Foundation resources. It is disheartening that the Conference >>> Grant Program Officer applied Indian legal constraints as a blanket >>> assumption for Nepal, hindering our community's growth based on a >>> misunderstanding of our local context. >>> >>> I have a question: How did the legal situation in India affect the >>> decision on a proposal of Nepal? >>> >>> Looking ahead to 2026 I was doubtful by the current grant applications >>> from the International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad. I see >>> that a request for 207,000 USD has been submitted for WikiConference India >>> 2026. Simultaneously, the same individual representing the same >>> institution, has applied for an separate 87,554.81 USD for an Open >>> Knowledge Conference within a gap of few months of the first event with >>> same purpose and target participants. >>> >>> As a Wikimedian this raises serious questions about the equitable >>> distribution and potential misuse of community resources. While Nepal is >>> told to scale down and gain experience with smaller events, a single >>> institution is requesting nearly 300,000 USD for overlapping projects with >>> same people in the organization role and same theme. >>> >>> If the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about redundancy and extra >>> costs when it comes to Nepal, why is it being overlooked when a single >>> institution in India applies for two major grants for nearly identical >>> purposes? We need more accountability and a fairer distribution of >>> resources to ensure that all communities not just one can grow. We urge the >>> foundation and the community to investigate these for the benefit of the >>> entire regional community and stop wasting the resources make the process >>> more transparent and accountable. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pankaj >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/UAEK3OOQKW2WLWBUVYPE76L33N3VM4KQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/WUHAXAPGFQMGB4MREXJLKBE4GZWOOBKB/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/XJ7DWPNWMJRYA74MG42MKRATTQRDZPP2/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
