[LACTTE] Re: [Linux-aus] ComputerBank NSW Grant Proposal
mikal at stillhq.com
Wed Jun 16 15:23:01 UTC 2004
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:33:16AM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
>>On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 22:44, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>>>btw what is the overall budget for grant requests each year?
>>We have set out a policy not to spend more than $3k/month on grants
>>(this going from memory, the wording of the policy is on the web site).
>>Keep in mind that this is a loan, so if everything goes okay, we don't
>>actually loose any money (unless you count interest in the bank
> Which you should, of course. At ~5%, it's about equivalent to a $2k (+/-
> $200) grant now, if they max out the facility by being continuously
> in debt to us for $10k for the first year and $15k for the two years
> after that. If they don't do that, it's less than that. If they're in
> debt to us for more than that over the couple of years, or they don't
> end up repaying because they go bust, it's more than that obviously.
> Is ComputerBank NSW getting better facilities better for LA than sending
> someone to a conference in Europe, or bringing someone from Europe or the
> US out here? If we can ensure that we don't end up losing $15k outright,
> then that's about what the interest costs come to.
Another way to think of the grant is that we're providing $(( cost of
interest )) in return for having a bunch of linux machines which
otherwise wouldn't be handed out offered to the public. There is in my
mind a clear public benefit to that.
> Can we ensure we don't end up losing $15k or more outright?
The email from Stewart details that we will make an attempt to establish
ourselves as a "senior creditor" if possible under Australian law, and
that payment of the grant is in the form of authorization of payment of
invoices. LA has discretional ability to declare the heated spa invoice
as not being worthy of payment.
More information about the linux-aus