Any Payments available On Fri, 1 May 2026, 10:54 pm Pavan Santhosh via Wikimedia-l, < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear all, > Over the past few months, there has been increased activity from IIIT > Hyderabad’s Open Knowledge Initiatives (OKI) team within Indic Wikimedia > communities, along with conversations around upcoming conferences. We > wanted to share the context to help situate these developments. > > The increased engagement from IIIT Hyderabad with Indic Wikimedia communities > follows the integration of the Open Knowledge Initiatives (OKI) team into > IIIT Hyderabad, which now hosts multiple verticals of work related to open > knowledge and Wikimedia projects across Indic languages. This expanded scope > has naturally led to greater institutional activity and collaboration with > communities. > More details about the initiative and areas of work are available here: > *https://w.wiki/KtNL* <https://w.wiki/KtNL> > We also wanted to clarify that WikiConference India 2026 (WCI 2026), and > the Open Knowledge Conference are distinct in both structure and > purpose. WikiConference India 2026 is envisioned as a community-led, > capacity-building space for Wikimedia contributors, affiliates, and > partners across India and South Asia, with volunteer committees guiding the > process and includes regional participation . WCI 2026 is supported by > IIIT Hyderabad and the Open Knowledge Conference is being designed as a > strategic forum to connect research, practice, and emerging movement-wide > challenges, including sustainability, contributor retention, and > responsible technology integration. > There is a participation paradox along with other trends like evolving > relationships with Legacy knowledge authorities and a fragmenting consensus > on "facts," the Open Knowledge Conference aims to develop actionable, > research-informed strategies to address these trends across Global Majority > communities, while addressing emergent movement relevant trends > While the two conferences may appear close in timing, they serve different > audiences and objectives. Additionally, India has hosted relatively > few national-level Wikimedia conferences over the past decade and a half, > and this surge of activity reflects renewed momentum rather than a > recurring pattern. It is also worth noting that the Open Knowledge > Conference is tentatively scheduled for the later months of 2026 and the > timelines are still being finalised. > We hope this context is helpful. We look forward to continued > collaboration and shared learning across communities. > Best regards, > Pavan Santhosh, > Program Manager, > Open Knowledge Initiatives at RCTS, > IIIT-Hyderabad. > ------------------------------ > *పంపినవారు:* Pankaj Sharma via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> > *పంపినవి:* 30, ఏప్రిల్ 2026, గురువారం 11:04 AM > *గ్రహీత:* Masum al Hasan <[email protected]>; Belinda Mbambo < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Wikimedia India Community list <[email protected]>; > Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > Pankaj Sharma <[email protected]> > *విషయం:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: [WikimediaIndia-l] Re: Re: Why Was Nepal > Denied While Overlapping Grants Were Approved in India? > > 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/W46OCFMHDPOSU6B4G2PNB3VGZAXOKKLM/ > 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/RHYPJN42E3R5B3H5GCEE43L76WLL6NLZ/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
