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:
- How are overlap and regional connection being defined and applied across
different proposals ?
- Why were external factors in one country used to delay or reject a proposal
from another.?
- 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
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-ne mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
