Hi, Sudhanwa. On this list, I generally speak as WMF staff. I did take on list *moderation* as a volunteer task -- since it is really not in my remit as staff -- and because at the time there were no active volunteers available to moderate the list, as I have already explained above.
The advice I gave about starting small is based on my own extensive experience as a Foundation grants officer (2011–2014) and on my familiarity with the current processes (which are indeed different from what you remember from your time as a grantee). Generally, if I have something to *say* as a volunteer on this list, I would use my volunteer address, which, it is easy to remember, does not end with @wikimedia.org or with the following signature: Asaf Bartov (he/him/his) Lead Program Officer, Emerging Communities Community Development Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 2:48 PM Sudhanwa Jogalekar via WikimediaIndia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Not sure if Asaf is replying in his volunteer mode or WMF staff mode. He > should clearly state that in his every communication. > > Also, he should give citations for whatever rules/guidelines he has > mentioned. Or else, it could be part of just his own thinking. > > I have been in the grants allocation process from old times.... I dont > remember having any such guidelines/rules for the grants. Possibly those > are introduced later on. > > Asaf and/or grants committee members or associates please clarify. > > Regards > Sudhanwa > > > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:25 PM Belinda Mbambo via WikimediaIndia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Loz, >> >> To build on what Asaf shared: the idea of “starting small” is meant as a >> pathway to help newer or less experienced groups build experience over time >> –with planning activities, managing budgets, and reporting– before moving >> on to larger and more complex events like conferences. >> >> Alongside this, there are a few ways we support organizers in building >> that experience. Many groups start with smaller grants (like Rapid Grants >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Grants:Project/Rapid>), >> which gives them a chance to run activities and build a track record. You >> can find more detail on this in the eligibility guidance >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference#Eligibility_requirements> >> on Meta. Additionally, applicants can also reach out to grant staff at >> different stages to talk through ideas, get feedback, and better understand >> what a good next step might be, and this is something we encourage >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference#Get_in_touch>. >> >> We also share materials and examples from past events (including budget >> templates >> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13W4ynIn3cT9ebbfjieS4cxQYn5R0xSc7krBeddN9WZo/copy>, >> reports >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Grants:Conference_Grants/Edit_%26_review_reports>, >> and other resources) so new organizers can see more concretely what is >> involved in running a conference. For groups interested in conferences, we >> would often encourage them to start with smaller or more local events (e.g. >> meetups, workshops, or thematic gatherings) before moving to larger >> regional conferences. Additionally, we also support new organizers or first >> time organizers to engage/speak with past conference organizers about their >> learnings, and connect the dots. >> >> You can find more details on how the Conference Fund works, including >> guidance and resources here on Meta >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference>. >> >> Thank you for taking the time to reach out and enquire about this. >> >> Best, >> >> Belinda >> >> >> >>> >>> From: Asaf Bartov via WikimediaIndia-l < >>> [email protected]> >>> Date: Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:37 PM >>> Subject: [WikimediaIndia-l] Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Why Was Nepal Denied >>> While Overlapping Grants Were Approved in India? >>> To: Wikimedia India Community list <[email protected] >>> > >>> Cc: Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the question, Loz: >>> >>> As a grantmaker, the Foundation must exercise [[due diligence]] in >>> allocating funds to grantees. Newer and less experienced grantees are more >>> of a risk of low or no impact (due to a variety of potential reasons, not >>> all the fault of the grantees), and so standard practice is to *start >>> small*: less-experienced grant-seekers should first apply for *Rapid >>> Grants*, to do some smaller-scale programmatic activities, and to >>> demonstrate impact, as well as proper governance around grant funds and >>> reporting. >>> >>> That's how groups can build a track record over time, and eventually >>> become eligible for bigger grants. And grant officers, starting from the >>> Rapid Grants program, are your allies in this journey, and can provide >>> advice and mentorship, if desired, to help groups identify appropriate >>> projects for subsequent grants. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> A. >>> >>> Asaf Bartov (he/him/his) >>> >>> Lead Program Officer, Emerging Communities >>> >>> Community Development >>> >>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >>> >>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share >>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! >>> https://donate.wikimedia.org >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 10:30 AM Loz Jones via WikimediaIndia-l < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rachit Sharma (he/him) >>> >>> Manager (Global Events & South Asia), >>> >>> Movement Communications, Wikimedia Foundation >>> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >>> >>> *We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge. * >>> >>> *We are the people who keep knowledge free.* >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > > > -- > > !~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~! > Have you tried IDN/EAI mailing? Check out idnmail.net > web: www.sudhanwa.com blog: www.sudhanwa.in > Twitter: sudhanwa Check on FB, Linkedin for more. > _______________________________________________ > 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/
