just from reading this it's difficult to understand how efforts to "ensure funds are disbursed to those who have past experience with managing a large fund and/or conference" [sic] (B.Mbambo) co-exist with empowering new participants and prioritising under-represented communities per the Eligibility requirements <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements>. I would ask what training is available for such potential organisers to gain the necessary experience for consideration in regards to conference grants?
Your faithfully, LJ, a retired Wikipedian On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 8:33 AM Chinmayee Mishra via WikimediaIndia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Pankaj Sharma Ji, > > I’m writing in response to your recent posts across multiple mailing > lists, including WikimediaIndia-l. > > First, I want to acknowledge a lapse on my part: I should have > communicated the reason for moderating (not approving) your message. As a > moderator, it is my standard practice to provide such context, and I regret > not doing so in this instance. > > With that, I would like to clarify the decision itself. The message was > not approved because it had already been sent to multiple mailing lists > with largely the same content, and it did not add new or list-specific > information for WikimediaIndia-l. In moderation, we try to ensure that > discussions remain relevant, constructive, and non-duplicative for the > specific audience of each list. > > This decision was not a judgment on the importance of the broader concerns > you are raising, but rather on the suitability of that particular message > for this specific mailing list, given its repetition and lack of additional > context tailored to the audience. > > Going forward, I encourage you to: > > - > > Share list-specific context when cross-posting > - > > Consolidate follow-ups where possible instead of repeating similar > messages > - > > Clearly distinguish new information or developments in subsequent posts > > > I appreciate your understanding, and I remain open to constructive, > focused discussions on the list. > > Regards, > > Chinmayee > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 10:25 AM 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. Below is the content from that >> email, which I believe highlights critical gaps in communication: >> >> *Content of Previous Email (18th April)* >> >> *Dear Belinda,* >> >> *Thank you for your Email response* >> >> *I would like to clarify that while the rejection itself is >> disappointing, the primary concern for us lies in the responses our >> community received from the Committee on our proposal talk page. In >> February, we received a set of questions, to which we promptly responded >> with detailed answers within the following week. However, when the decision >> was communicated to us in March, it seemed to focus primarily on the close >> connection between WikiConference India and the potential SAARC Conference, >> citing uncertainties surrounding WikiConference India as a key factor.* >> >> *We are still struggling to understand why this issue led to the >> rejection of our proposal, especially considering the context surrounding >> India. You mentioned that multiple factors are considered when evaluating >> proposals. However, based on the feedback we received, the main concern >> raised by the Committee was the connection between WikiConference India and >> the SAARC Conference, tied to the uncertain situations in India. After >> discussing this with some community members, this leads us to ask: Why was >> this issue only highlighted when it came from a volunteer community like >> ours and not when it involved an institutional body in India? Why do we >> feel that the Committee treated us differently?* >> >> *Further Concerns and Questions:* >> >> 1. *How can we resolve issues that are specific to India (such as the >> FCRA license) from Nepal? This seems outside of our control. Why should >> our >> proposal be impacted by challenges in another country?* >> 2. *The Open Knowledge Conference proposal on the talk page has >> unanswered questions, despite being months since they were posted. Did the >> Committee have time to review and respond to these before approval? Or was >> this simply overlooked?* >> 3. *We feel that the lack of transparency in the process, especially >> for smaller volunteer communities like ours, is a significant concern. You >> mentioned that we might not be aware of behind-the-scenes discussions. But >> isn’t it important to ensure that all voices—especially those of >> volunteers—are heard clearly and fairly?* >> >> >> 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 Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026 at 12:30 AM, Belinda Mbambo via >> Wikimedia-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/DPLUPMOVVINQZTYRZUD7OKOSRH4OKRBE/ >> 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
