Talk:Global Resource Distribution Committee

To inform the interim GRDC work, we seek feedback from all affiliates, other recipients of grants, and everyone else interested in an effective distribution of funds across the Wikimedia movement. For more information, see Request for feedback. Please add below your answers to the question What are the most significant challenges your community faces as it relates to resource distribution within the movement? Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello there. In our region (LAC), we have at least four "fully consolidated groups" requesting around 65 % of the region's assigned funds (ps.: eye estimated, not real numbers). These kinds of challenges we have in the region stem from the fact that we want to fund everyone, but the "too big to fail" effect is present here. So, how can we support the small groups present in the region?, How can we ensure the process is fair for everyone?. It's easy for an established affiliate to ask for funds because they have staff or knowledge about the process, but a newcomer or first-timer needs more resources or guidance about the process. This kind of challenge is present in every region and seems a good starting point to discuss scarcity, how to be fair and how to support -with limits- an affiliate. Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @Superzercool, the GRDC agrees with the challenges you describe for new grant applicants, and they are now reflected in the section about Equity in Access to Resources of Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy. The "too big to fail" effect you mention is reflected in other places of these Key challenges. Lack of differentiated and structured funding pathways talk about how the funding to organizations should be more sustainable for everyone, and Lack of shared impact framework refers to the need to connect funding with impact, to give equal opportunities to established and newcomer organizations. The GRDC has started to discuss and draft potential solutions to these problems. We welcome your feedback and ideas on these Key challenges in the corresponding Talk page to inform our next steps. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• We at Wiki Project Med are happy with the current resources we receive from the WMF. Though most of our work is still done by volunteers, funding has helped pay programmers for work we are unable to find volunteers willing/able to do and pay for inventory in multiple countries as we adjust to new international realities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• The most profound challenge is the persistent and unfair erasure of Southern Europe as a distinct region within the Movements’ resource and strategic frameworks. We are chronically subsumed into a broader, inaccurate category, grouped with the wealthy and institutionally robust North-Western Europe. There is also a separate category for the CEE. However, Southern Europe does not exist at all.

This is not a mere oversight, it is an inequity. It is fundamentally unfair to impose strategies and processes designed for Berlin or Warsaw upon communities in Lisbon or Madrid. Our socio-economic realities, marked by high youth unemployment, a predominance of small-to-medium enterprises rather than large philanthropic foundations, the specific contractor ("autónomo") model, and unique cultural dynamics around open knowledge, are rendered invisible. We cannot properly operate in a "one-size-fits-all" model.

The single most critical structural reform we need is our own dedicated, regional funding pool. A ring-fenced allocation for Southern Europe is not a request for special treatment, it is a demand for equitable access. Only by having a pool designed with and for our specific challenges, such as funding core stability for small associations, supporting volunteer retention in economies with high precarious employment, and addressing our unique content gaps, can we break the cycle of underfunding. This pool would allow us to compete based on our local impact and strategic value to the movement, rather than losing out in competitions against regions with vastly different economies and institutional histories. It would also allow us to access resources within a framework of regional and contextual expertise, in which we do not need to explain again and again how things work in our region.

Until the Movement recognizes Southern Europe's unique profile and needs, not as a sub-region of another, but as a strategic priority in its own right with its own dedicated resources, resource distribution will remain inefficient and unjust, perpetuating a cycle of missed potential.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @PatriHorrillo, the GRDC has received extensive feedback about newcomers, thematic groups, smaller initiatives, and underrepresented communities facing higher barriers to entry and slower pathways to growth. We also understand that the context and specific challenges of these groups is less known or understood than the context and challenges of more established organizations. Altogether, these issues make it harder to ensure equitable access to resources. In Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy we have identified some of these challenges, particularly those we have heard repeatedly across the movement. We invite you to share your feedback in that space as well. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

To inform the interim GRDC work, we seek feedback from all affiliates, other recipients of grants, and everyone else interested in an effective distribution of funds across the Wikimedia movement. For more information, see Request for feedback. Please add below your answers to the question Where would you start improving the current resources distribution process? Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

We need to start where we can make the most impact. The biggest budget item by far is the WMF expenditure on salaries, so that's always going to be the first item to consider. How do we measure its impact and compare it to the alternatives? Nemo 15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @Nemobis There is an ongoing question on how the total budget for grantmaking is set by the Wikimedia Foundation, and whether the overall percentage could be increased. We have mentioned this question in the section Resource constraints across the Movement of the Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy. However, the GRDC’s main responsibility is to design a grantmaking strategy, although we also hope to provide recommendations on the Community Fund envelope in the coming years, as outlined in our responsibilities. We are currently working on the key challenges we have identified, which you can find here. We welcome your feedback on these key challenges to help inform our next steps. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Dennis, a current member of RFC LAC until next year. About the current process, I read the note-taking from Hispanic affiliates in Buenos Aires, and I feel impressed by the unknown about how the process works and how the process is made by committee members, even from some people who were working in other WMF committees in the past. I see the first step is gathering or reaching the affiliates and showing (again or first time) how the grant-making is doing in WMF and how the endowment is doing in the movement, I read a lot of negative feedback about our working as "bad decision makers" and this is midly frustrating for me, because I every time wants to support my region, formerly as WMCL board member and currently serving in this committee in the past years.

Other think "to improve" is asking the affiliates if they want to continue supporting this way to ask for funds, or if they are thinking of the previous models. I read the notes from LATAM+Spain notes, and they want a new model based on thematic instead of region: it's pretty tricky to do some kind of this separation, because the language itself seems a good starting point, but we couldn't figure out how much diversity topics could arise in the next years.

In my experience reviewing all the proposals for my region, I suggest being more strict with non-good-standing affiliates (ie, don't meet criteria about internal governance, or they don't prove the impact). Unfortunately, the number of affiliates (recognised or not by WMF) has been growing pretty fast in the last years, and the funds available are not growing so fast that small affiliates can't be funded because some large affiliates need more money to "maintain the lights on" of the organisation.

I know, this is tricky feedback, because you ask about how to start, but the first step is reconozing about the needing is growing so fast, the newcomers needs money and the big one need more money, so the question is "how can make process more fairly for everyone?", Will the WMF movement so open the receive new groups without any limits? (yeah, I know the RfC from the AffCom).

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @Superzerokool, the GRDC agrees that the Regional Fund Committees are under a lot of pressure and that their (your) work as volunteers is often unknown or misunderstood. We have dedicated an entire section about the RFCs in the Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy and we need to find good solutions together. As you mention, we have received a lot of feedback from thematic organizations, they feel that the current regional model isn’t working well for them, but the solutions aren’t clear yet. We are mentioning this challenge in Underrepresentation of thematic organizations in funding pathways. Another piece of feedback we have received quite frequently over the past months relates to the idea of linking funding to impact, and this is also a key challenge we hope to address and define a response to this, with the objective of improving fairness and equity in access to resources. The challenge of how to support a growing number of affiliates, the question goes beyond the GRDC and we are collaborating with the Ecosystem pilot and the AffCom to tackle this issue in combination with grantmaking. See the recent proposal for a Future Affiliate Landscape, which covers this challenge. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Establish specific, significant funds for priority strategic areas like gender equity. This recognizes that closing knowledge gaps in these areas requires specialized, sustained investment. It allows groups focused on gender to apply for resources without competing against large, general-purpose affiliates, ensuring funding aligns directly with Movement Strategy.

We also think that it would be good to shift a substantial portion of funding from purely project-based grants to core operational and capacity-building grants. This means directly supporting the professionalization of groups, paying for staff, secure workspaces, legal fees, and basic tools. The goal is to move groups from a precarious existence to stability, enabling them to plan beyond a short term project cycle and focus on high-impact work. There is a reason most gender groups are user groups, with many operating in conditions akin to hand-to-mouth, and quite frankly that reflects very poorly on the Movement and its reliance on volunteer exploitation as a model. We need to sustainably grow and professionalise these groups.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @PatriHorrillo, the GRDC agrees that we as a Movement need clearer strategic priorities to guide funding, and we have reflected this problem in Unclear strategic priorities and shared vision under Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy. Also related, we agree that there is an underrepresentation of thematic organizations in funding pathways. We are mentioning this challenge in Affiliate Sustainability & Funding Structures. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

To inform the interim GRDC work, we seek feedback from all affiliates, other recipients of grants, and everyone else interested in an effective distribution of funds across the Wikimedia movement. For more information, see Request for feedback. Please add below your answers to the question What are the top priority areas that we must support? And given limited funds, in which areas should we reduce our support? Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I think we must ask ourselves about how the money is retrieved and how it is spent in the movement. I reviewed some grant proposals, around 65 % ~ 90 % are staff or organization spending, and the other amount is for travel for activities or participating in Wikimedia events. So, the main question to ask is "how much money are we spending to 'maintain the lights on' and keep running everything in every affiliate and WMF?". This kind of answer will set up our "minimal amount to be a movement" (without volunteers). This kind of question only creates a concept about "hey, everyone, we need X USD to keep the Y organization running without organizing anything". After this introspective answer, we could ask ourselves if the impact of activities helps to change the world, or if we are creating only a way to support a personal passion instead of a collective benefit.

Yeah, unfortunately, I don't answer your question because if there is no analysis about spending, it's not easy to guess what area to reduce anything...

Superzerocool (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC) (ps: don't read this as an accusation; maybe a language barrier is present here!)Reply

• Superzerocool, the GRDC agrees with these concerns. To prevent situations like the ones you describe, we propose to focus on these challenges: Lack of differentiated and structured funding pathways, Unclear strategic priorities and shared vision, and Lack of shared impact framework. With strategic priorities set and a framework to measure impact, it should be easier for everyone to request funds for impactful activities and for sustainable organizations. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• IMO software and tool development should be prioritized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• Doc James, while the GRDC is not set to decide which strategic priorities should be funded (i.e. software development), we think that these strategic priorities should be clearly identified and supported with funding. We have identified Unclear strategic priorities and shared vision as one of the problems to tackle in Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy. We welcome your feedback on these Key challenges to inform our next steps. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Underrepresented groups and topics. If gender equity (and similarly, topics related to the Global South, LGBT, indigenous knowledge) is a true priority in terms of participation, content, and leadership, then it must be funded accordingly. Provide real multi-year core funding to affiliates and groups that demonstrate measurable impact in these strategic areas, enabling them to grow sustainably.

While we think it is problematic to operate under a scarcity mentality that is very likely articifial, the logical choice would be to reduce support to activities that do not reduce knowledge gaps and do not demonstrably contribute to Movement Strategy. That includes projects with no clear equity lens, which do not explicitly address how they will improve knowledge equity or diversity, as well as inertia funding for old affiliates. It is more than possible to examine continued, disproportionate funding to large, established affiliates in well-represented regions if they are not pivoting significantly on closing critical gaps, for instance. Support should be recalibrated towards their strategic initiatives, not their institutional permanence.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• PatriHorrillo, the GRDC agrees that there is a challenge in equity in access to resources, especially for underrepresented communities and underrepresented thematic organizations. This keeps younger and smaller organizations in a disadvantageous situation. Thank you for your continuous feedback, and please keep contributing good ideas. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• As a newer user group organizer, I wish that there was more support for expanding the pie. User groups could be supported to apply to varied sources of funding, and not be over-dependent on the Foundation. This would also make these programs more sustainable and accessible to new entrants. E mln e (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

• E mln e, the GRDC agrees that the sole reliance on WMF funding is not sustainable, and that Wikimedia organizations with long term ambitions need to plan accordingly and consider other funding sources. We have identified this feedback that you and many others have given as a key challenge – see Limited fundraising capacity and coordinated support across the Movement under Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy. We welcome your feedback on these Key challenges to inform our next steps. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Happy January! These are the highlights of the Global Resource Distribution Committee since our last update.

Refreshed Funding Principles ready for your review

The GRDC is expected to answer important questions and to make important decisions. To do this work well, we need to agree on answers and decisions based on a refreshed strategy grounded in our current situation and objectives as a movement. The Funding Principles guide the strategic priorities of the GRDC and everyone else involved in Wikimedia grantmaking. They also guide us on how decisions are made and why. This is a major update and we welcome your feedback for improvements in the Discussion page.

Strategic purpose and priorities

With the Funding Principles in place, it is time to define the purpose and the priorities of the strategy we are set to define and propose as a first draft by Wikimania, in August. We have divided the GRDC members in two groups and we have started drafting the proposals. We are building this work on top of the Funding Principles, the feedback received, past and current work in the Wikimedia movement (like the Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations pilot), and good examples by other organizations.

Coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation

We are increasing our contacts within the Wikimedia Foundation and our involvement in their planning activities. Since our start, we have been working closely with the Community Resources and Partnerships team, who organizes resource distribution and supports our committee. Recently we have met the Board of Trustees and we have established a direct connection to ensure that we remain strategically aligned. Also, we are getting ready to participate in the conversations related to the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2026-2027.

Specialized outreach

As implied in the information above, the GRDC is reaching out to our stakeholders and organizing ongoing conversations and work with each of them. For this to work, we have organized ourselves in working groups engaging with each of our main stakeholders: the Community (volunteers and volunteer-based affiliates), the Executive Directors Group, the Affiliations Committee, the Regional Fund Committees, and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are still tweaking some details about who goes to which group, and when we have the groups confirmed we will publish them on our page here on Meta. If you have questions or feedback for us, you don’t have to wait. Just contact us!

--Taweethaも (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for these updates. I’m not sure where the best place is to surface this, but I understand that the concept of thematic funding is already on the GRDC committee’s radar. I don’t have all the solutions, but I do think it’s important to raise and acknowledge this, and I appreciate the committee for considering it. I’d be interested to know how the GRDC is currently thinking about thematics, and how I and other thematic affiliates might be helpful in moving that conversation forward. So far, I’ve been instructed that the best way to engage is through the talk page here, but if another method or specific information would be more helpful, please let me know. I’m also happy to talk more about how Art+Feminism’s work relates to this topic if that would be useful.

To give a very general example of Art+Feminism’s work, we are a US-based nonprofit, but our leadership team, board members, network organizers, and event organizers are truly global. Like much of the movement, we currently see the most activity in Africa, and our leadership team, board, and network organizers all include strong representation there. I want to clarify that our work is not limited to Africa. We hold events every year across multiple continents and countries worldwide. I share this simply as one example of how a strictly regional model does not always align with how our work is structured. --Kiraface (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Kiraface thank you very much for reaching out. Yes, a comment here is a good start. We also have our ongoing request for feedback about three main questions just above, in case you want to share more in the context of those questions. And of course, you can reach out to grdc@wikimedia.org or to me as the GRDC member selected for the thematic seat. In any case, your point about the need to discuss thematic funding is shared by the GRDC. We want to have more conversations with the organizations working on thematic priorities. While most regions have clear spaces for regional conversations, so far we have struggled finding the right venues to have discussions centered on thematics. If you and other thematic organizations have a space to meet and discuss, or if you want to have an online workshop with us, we just need to find the best time(s) and meet! I'd add that the same concern was shared by others at the GLAMWiki conference - when thematic work is international it can be hard to work out how it sits in the existing funding structures. I recall at least three conversations on this, which I fed back to the rest of the GRDC, but it is really informative to know that's a shared concern of A+F's. Also, I feel I owe you an apology: I meant to reach out last Autumn, but my PhD took over my life, let me know if you'd still like to chat separately. Plus, a second apology that it took me so long to respond to this. Speak soon Lajmmoore (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

We'd love to be involved in a conversation! We'll have more flexibility to meet after this month. --Kiraface (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

We published our last update recently and we have been working mostly on internal tasks since then. Here is a summary of ongoing work:

Funding Principles

We are processing the feedback about the Funding Principles. We have got several insightful comments and we are working on the responses. We would like to thank you for your patience; some items are more straightforward to address than others, and in parallel we are carefully analyzing the most significant points.

Strategic priorities

A key takeaway from the feedback is the need to clearly explain what problems this strategy is trying to solve. In recent months, we have advanced two parallel tracks: refining the Funding Principles and defining the core strategic priorities and challenges ahead. We expect to share this work in the coming weeks. We will also use this first version to inform the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual planning, and to focus our conversations with the communities, affiliates, and other stakeholders.

Strategic purpose

We are also working on the purpose of the Grantmaking Strategy, defining why it matters, who it serves, and what long-term success looks like. A good purpose definition ensures the strategy stays coherent, relevant and community-focused. This work is still ongoing and closely aligned with the broader strategy development.

Meeting the Regional Fund Committees

In the coming weeks, the GRDC is holding sessions with the Regional Fund Committees. As key implementers of the current strategy, their perspectives help us better understand emerging challenges and opportunities. The GRDC is also responsible for guiding the policy and strategic direction of the Regional Fund Committees; these meetings aim to learn from their feedback and better understand their ideas, needs, and requests.

Do you also want to meet the GRDC? Contact us! Ridzaina (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here is a summary of our progress since our last update:

Key challenges

We have identified Key challenges for a new Grantmaking Strategy:

Strategic challenges

• Equity in Access to Resources
• Affiliate Sustainability and Funding Structures
• Funding Priorities and Impact

Operational Challenges

• Regional Fund Committees
• Eligibility and Funding Pathways

We have developed this diagnosis based on feedback and proposals from communities, affiliates, the Affiliations Committee, the Ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations pilot, and the Wikimedia Foundation. We understand that there are more challenges to consider. The idea is that focusing on these challenges first will help address the rest.

This identification of key challenges follows our publication of Funding Principles in January. Both documents are the basis of the upcoming Grantmaking Strategy, which we have started to discuss. As always, your feedback is important!

Events

GRDC members Lucas Piantá, Lucy Crompton-Reid, and Herschal Jackson have joined a Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2026-2027 drafting sprint. The purpose of this participation was to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual planning process, meet the Board of Trustees and key staff involved in grantmaking and the Ecosystem pilot, meet the AffCom members, and communicate our plans and ongoing work to all of them. We accomplished these objectives, and our common understanding and alignment have increased.

We have run more online workshops with specific groups: we met the South Asia regional community, and we also met Wikimedia LGBT+. These workshops are very useful, and we continue to encourage more groups to invite us.

Regional Fund Committees

The GRDC guides the policy and strategy for the Regional Fund Committees. The upcoming Grantmaking Strategy must take into account their first-hand experience. We have met with almost all the committees, and will meet with those pending. We are integrating their feedback into our strategy work.

Future Affiliate Landscape

The Ecosystem pilot has published the Future Affiliate Landscape proposal. This is an important step forward in thinking about how affiliate support and funding support are related. GRDC member Herschal Jackson participates in the focus group that has written this proposal. He acts as a bridge between the focus group and our committee. We are taking this proposal as an important source of feedback for our upcoming Grantmaking Strategy.

We hope these updates help you understand what we are doing and where we are headed. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback. Monica Bonilla (WMCO) (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here is a summary of our progress since our last update.

Three initial questions

Last November, the GRDC asked here three initial questions to inform our work:

• What are the most significant challenges your community faces as it relates to resource distribution within the movement?
• Where would you start improving the current resources distribution process?
• What are the top priority areas that we must support? And given limited funds, in which areas should we reduce our support?

This feedback, together with the workshops we had at several conference and online meetings, informed the Funding Principles and the Key Challenges. We thank you for your contributions, and we have replied to the comments received, closing that call for feedback officially.

Grantmaking Strategy

We have started to discuss the strategy to address the key challenges of grantmaking we identified last month. It’s a complex task. Through the feedback rounds we have received many ideas to consider. There are also any dependencies to the Affiliations Committee and the Ecosystem pilot strategic work. We are progressing slowly but surely. Our goal is to have a first proposal of the Grantmaking Strategy with some ideas selected and aligned with AffCom and the Wikimedia Foundation.

This time our work has been more internal and therefore our update is shorter than usual. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here is a summary of our progress since our last update.

Grantmaking Strategy

The writing of our Grantmaking Strategy draft continues. At the same time, we have had some meetings with Wikimedia Foundation staff to discuss aspects of their Annual Plan related to grantmaking. We have organized three groups around the three main challenges identified, we are proposing strategic ideas to address these challenges, and then each group is sharing their ideas with the rest of the internal committee for internal review and overall cohesion. Doing this work quickly, efficiently and online isn’t easy (Wikimedians know this well). Some of us are meeting for a drafting sprint face to face in Barcelona for two full days of work. The goal of this sprint is to have a first complete and cohesive draft to be reviewed by the whole committee before we start sharing it.

Acknowledgement of your feedback

We are aware that we are lagging behind on our response to your feedback posted here on Meta-Wiki and shared in other channels too. We assure you that we are reading all this feedback and it is informing our work. We haven’t been able to respond as swiftly as we hoped because your strategic questions and comments deserve strategic answers, and for that we need to have strategic proposals agreed among the committee members first. We thank you again for your feedback, we continue to encourage you to share it, and we will respond to it in due time.

--Taweethaも (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here is a summary of our progress since our last update.

Grantmaking Strategy

Some committee members met in Barcelona for a drafting sprint, and we had a very productive weekend! WMF Board trustee Victoria Doronina joined us on the first day, and her participation was very valuable. We all had agreed that having a WMF trustee joining the sprint would help in mutual awareness and understanding. At the end of the sprint, we had a first version for the full committee to review and polish. This is what we are doing right now, as fast as our volunteering time allows.

Once we have the draft Grantmaking Strategy proposal ready, we plan to share it with stakeholders (e.g. WMF Board of Trustees, WMF Community Resources team or affiliate EDs), and then here on Meta. All these steps will be leading to our session at Wikimania.

Wikimania session

The Wikimania organizers have confirmed our session: GRDC Workshop: Presenting the Grantmaking strategy and co-designing next steps. If you are attending the event in Paris, we invite you to join us July 22 at 11:00 in the Governance & Strategy track! Beyond this session, we hope to meet many of you and hear your feedback. Also, Wikimania will mark our first anniversary as an officially constituted interim Global Resource Distribution Committee. 🎂

--Taweethaも (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Global Resource Distribution Committee has published a proposal for a refreshed Grantmaking Strategy for the Wikimedia movement.This strategy is the result of a year-long process. It draws on consultation with a wide range of communities, affiliates, Regional Fund Committees, the Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations pilot, AffCom recommendations, and several Wikimedia Foundation teams.

The overarching goal is to create a grantmaking system that enables a more equitable, sustainable and impactful Wikimedia Movement. This strategy aims to:

• Improve fairness, transparency and consistency in funding decisions.
• Remove barriers to funding for emerging and underrepresented communities.
• Strengthen the long-term sustainability of Wikimedia affiliates.
• Ensure funding is more clearly linked to strategic priorities and measurable impact.
• Empower regional decision-making while maintaining shared movement priorities.

Ultimately, the strategy seeks to strengthen Wikimedia communities worldwide, support contributors and readers, increase access to reliable free knowledge, and build a more resilient movement.

Share your feedback

This draft Grantmaking Strategy should be of interest to all people who are engaged with the goals of the Wikimedia movement. The GRDC wants to emphasise that this is a draft strategy. Your feedback on its content will enable us to revise this first attempt to better meet our collective needs. Please be constructive in your feedback and propose alternatives to points you would like to see change.

Whether you are a volunteer, affiliate, Regional Funds Committee member, grant recipient, or simply interested in how movement resources are distributed, we hope you will take part in the conversation.

Here are a few questions on which we would appreciate your feedback:

• Which aspects of the Grantmaking strategy are you in full agreement with?
• What issues, concerns, or potential problems do you see in the current proposal?
• Do you see specific aspects of the draft that are not aligned with the strategic vision?
• Who should be eligible to apply for Rapid Grants?
• If a thematic funding stream is introduced, how should it be governed and managed?
• If an appeals mechanism for funding decisions is created, how should it be designed and operated?

Feedback on the draft Grantmaking Strategy 2026 will remain open on Meta until September 17, 2026. We also invite you to join the GRDC's discussion session at Wikimania on 22 July at 11:00 AM in Room 4, where the committee will present the draft strategy, answer questions, and hear community feedback.

All GRDC members are also community members, who are passionate about the movement. The best location where we can read and compare feedback is on the discussion pages of the strategy. We are also looking forward to the workshop at Wikimania for those who are able to participate. We are committed to collaborating with you to further refine this significant proposal for the movement.

The draft has also been shared with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. While the Board participated in early discussions during its development and has already begun providing feedback, their formal review will continue over the coming weeks. A dedicated discussion between the Board and the GRDC is scheduled during Wikimania, and any resulting feedback will help shape future iterations of this strategy.

As with any draft, this document is expected to evolve through community discussion, governance conversations, and during its implementation process. We are grateful for the time our community is taking to respond to this draft. Thank you.

On behalf of the Global Resource Distribution Committee, Lajmmoore (talk) and Mervat (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here is a summary of our progress since our last update.

Grantmaking Strategy

We published our draft Grantmaking Strategy for the Wikimedia movement. This is the culmination of our first year of work as the Global Resource Distribution Committee, and we are very happy for having delivered it right before Wikimania, as planned. This is a draft, and your input will shape the final strategy. We hope you'll take part!

Feedback will be open on Meta until September 16. We're also starting to plan meetups with communities to keep gathering input for refining the final strategy. The idea is to keep building this process together.

Wikimania

Six GRDC members traveled to Paris and participated in a very intense and enjoyable Wikimania. On Wednesday 22, we had a session to present the draft strategy and co-design next steps. This was our intention, and we had conceived the session as a workshop. However, as the space was packed and given that there were many questions and comments, we changed plans on the spot and after our presentation we opened a Q&A, then encouraged participants to provide feedback on specific aims from the strategy. This lasted till the end of the session. If you weren’t there, we encourage you to watch the recording.

At Wikimania we also met with Wikimedia Foundation trustees, who shared initial feedback on the draft Grantmaking Strategy and with whom we intend to keep working — together with the Community Resources Team, and alongside the community — to finalize it. And a big thank you to everyone at Wikimania who came up to us and showed interest in this draft and in our work more broadly. We're grateful for all your feedback!

We will need a bit of time (and some rest) to process everything and start responding. In the meantime, please keep your feedback coming!

— Ridzaina (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply