Hi everyone,
I suddenly realized that Wikimania Paris this year ends at the last weekend
of July, and that weekend traditionally also is the finish of the Tour De
France <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tour_de_France> in Paris. The
Tour the France is one of three yearly multi-day road cycling tours in
Europe, and the final day attracts thousands of cycle enthusiasts to the
capital city. The final stage on 26 July will include a (most probably) *mass
sprint on the Champs-Élysées in the afternoon*, but during the day they
will also ride along the Butte Montmartre, in the proximity of the Sacré-Cœu,
the Louvre, and the Place de la Concorde, among other city sites.
Because of the big crowd the event attracts, and the hundreds of people
involved in the organisation, I wanted to make you aware that you might
want to expect safety measures in the city centre, and also plan your
travel accordingly. This is a translation of what a Dutch cycling blog
<https://www.sortiraparis.com/nl/hobbys/sport-en-welzijn/articles/54458-aank…>
tells me about what to expect in Paris at Sunday 26 July:
*== Traffic Restrictions and Practical Tips ==*
As is the case every year, extensive security measures will be put in
place. Traffic restrictions will be implemented gradually starting Saturday
evening. On Sunday, July 26, roads will be closed on the *Champs-Élysées*
on the *Étoile side* starting at 6 a.m., and near the Concorde and
Madeleine starting at 9 a.m. Starting at 1 p.m., the *Montmartre* and *Grand
Boulevards* neighborhoods will no longer be accessible to motor vehicles.
*Parking* will be prohibited along the entire route starting at 6:00 p.m.
on Saturday evening. Vehicles that remain parked will be systematically
towed. Please note: these restrictions also apply to bicycles.
As for public transportation, several *metro stations will be closed*:
Tuileries, Concorde, Clémenceau, Franklin Roosevelt, George V, Charles de
Gaulle-Étoile, and Madeleine will remain closed all day. Starting at 1:00
p.m., the Villiers, Rome, Place de Clichy, and Blanche stations, as well as
the Montmartre funicular, will be closed to the public.
*To enter the SILT zone* (security zone), you must pass through checkpoints
and undergo a security search. Pedestrians can move freely in most areas,
except for three streets in Montmartre that will be closed during the race:
Rue Norvins, Rue Puget, and Rue Coustou. Traffic restrictions will not be
lifted until after 8:30 p.m.
*<end of deepl translated quote>*
Personally, I think this is a great event to attend and enjoy, and the Tour
de France in general is three weeks of crazy all through the country - can
you imagine cycling 3,333 km (2,071 mi) in three weeks time, with only 2
days of rest inbetween?! But I also realized that when you want (need!) to
travel home after Wikimania, it might be nice to have a heads up about the
event, so here you are. 🙂
(Of course, I might have missed prior communication, or jumped ahead on
preparations by the COT - happy to have anyone add important information
that I may have missed.)
Best,
Ciell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If you're born a lion, don't bother trying to act tame *
Hi everyone,
On behalf of the Wikimania Steering Committee [1] we are welcoming *expressions
of interest
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Expressions_of_Interest/Curr…>**
[
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Expressions_of_Interest/Curr…>*2]
from community groups to host Wikimania in 2028 and 2029.
Wikimania is the annual international conference that brings together
members of the Wikimedia movement, fostering collaboration, learning, and
celebration of free knowledge. The event is guided by the Steering
Committee, organized by a core organizing team of volunteers [3] and
closely supported by the Movement Communications team [4] in the Wikimedia
Foundation.
We welcome community groups that are enthusiastic and capable of managing
the logistical and organizational responsibilities of hosting this
large-scale conference. If your group is ready to take on the honor and
challenge of hosting Wikimania, we encourage you to submit an expression of
interest. You can propose several cities at this stage. Make sure to
consult with your local community before submitting.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you have any questions or
comments. You can express your interest on wiki or email us at
wikimania(a)wikimedia.org. You can add your group and location to the list
until 1 June 2026, and edit your proposal until 15 June 2026 (anywhere on
earth).
Best regards,
Lodewijk Gelauff
on behalf of
Wikimania Steering Committee and WMF Movement Communications team
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee
[2]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Expressions_of_Interest/Curr…
[3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2026:Organizers
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Communications/Movemen…
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 <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> 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
> <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> 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_Fu…>
> 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_requiremen…>
> .
>
> There are some basic eligibility criteria
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requiremen…>
> 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 <
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> 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 <
>> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> 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_Fu…>
>>> 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_Fu…>
>>> 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/Co…>
>>> and WikiConference India 2025
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Co…>
>>> 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 <
>>> Pankajsharma96(a)protonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The community proposal to host the regional SAARC Conference in 2026 in
>>> Nepal
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fu…>
>>> 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 -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org