Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Why Was Nepal Denied While Overlapping Grants Were Approved in India? - Wikimania-l

21 Apr 2026

      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 <
wikimedia-l@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@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_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 ?
   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@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_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 -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org