VPs don’t make sense since VPs are for managing multiple teams in a portfolio. CSESoc Projects doesn’t have any portfolios.

Trainees are it’s own directors since we would imagine they require focus on it throughout the year and giving that responsibility to an exec prevents them from having a wider angle view of the society.

No HR directors or Marketing directors or Creative directors?

For HR, your current system seems to be working fine, and it also encourages more participation when each team gets to host something!

For Marketing and Creative, we reckon it’s fine to keep using the current CSESoc team, since Projects' load doesn’t seem to be too much.

Also, this arrangement keeps the society 100% technical focused.

Since CSESoc Website could fall into either society, we think CSESoc Projects should take the website team. The website is still a project, and it should get the full support of Projects.

CSESoc will become more focused on student experience, where as CSESoc projects would be more focused on giving students practical project experience.

CSESoc would need to retain an agreement with CSESoc projects letting them use a shared infrastructure, and giving certain CSESoc members access to do things like host the media website, or run Lab0, or run a Minecraft Server.

That said, improvements would be on CSESoc to make, unless CSE Projects agreed to do it. Before doing the de-merger, it'd be sensible to understand all the technical work currently going on in CSESoc, and whether it's sensible to ask CSE Projects to do it.

Projects historically has not had much to market, except for recruitment drives or new updates. A CSESoc Projects Creative and Marketing team would therefore be quite limited to what they can work on. Also, not having a Creative or Marketing team keeps all the teams technically focused (projects or trainee).

We don’t think CSESoc Projects should start their own social media platforms because it’s just extra noise when the current platforms are fine. The projects are branded with CSESoc anyways so externally there should be no change. CSESoc Projects would also benefit from using CSESoc’s larger audience to reach more people, which would lead to a higher number of applications.

Projects teams heavily use Confluence for documentation and Jira for sprint planning. Projects definitely could apply for their own license and set up their own Confluence and Jira, however:

• time and effort

• CSESoc piggyback off projects for its open-source license which is free and applying for another one could mean Atlassian shuts down the current instance of Confluence and Jira since we no longer have an “open-source” project that we said we had.

Overall it’s just easier to use the same instance of Confluence and Jira, especially when all the tickets and backlogs are already set up.

The Projects portfolio typically don’t require much email use, since their communication is primarily on Discord and they don’t require communication with external contacts.

GSuite admin access allows users to read all incoming and outgoing emails, and read audit logs of any CSESoc user, so unless there are good reasons the CSESoc Projects CTO needs admin access, there seems to be no need to give them so much access.

This is an ESTIMATE NUMBER. CSESoc Projects needs to provide us a draft budget for us to confirm this amount. In 2022, the Projects team was allocated $2000.

Arc affiliation is incredibly important to have someone who you can go to about things like bullying, misconduct, etc. Having Arc@UNSW is a guarantee that there will be someone to deal with that sort of stuff. It sets minimum standards on the constitution, etc.

There is precisely 0 reason to not arc-affiliate, and so much risk to not doing so.

This is mainly to make sure there isn't "competition" between the two societies. Basically, CSESoc will not start their own software projects without checking in with CSE Projects; and CSE Projects won't run big events aimed outside the society without checking in with CSESoc.

Arc gives you like $2000 anyways if you’re Arc affiliated. Arc would also have a problem with a society spending too much on internals (and could potentially lose Arc affiliation)

What would a sponsorship package deal look like if CSESoc Projects were to get sponsors? For CSESoc, this involves marketing or advertising them, and hosting dedicated and shared events. CSESoc Projects is inwardly focused, so holding dedicated events doesn’t really make sense. This only leaves advertising. Advertisements on our projects is something the execs can decide in the future, but at this point in time, we don’t want to encourage anything that may lead to ads on our websites - it’s just not a good look. Another offer could be putting them at the top of Jobsboard, which isn’t fair to students either.

If money is an issue, you can always ask CSESoc for more, within reason.

If sponsors are giving too much money, we don’t want to create an environment where developers are being “paid”, either directly or indirectly. This is a volunteering student society, and introducing too much money could complicate things.

We recognise that sponsors allows a society to become self-sufficient, and this could definitely be something the society aims for in the future. But for now, we’re discouraging sponsors. Also we don’t wanna fight over sponsors between the two societes

We plan to have the CSESoc Projects IGM and CSESoc AGM at the same time, so the timing of Director recruitment drive would be quite similar. It would be beneficial to both parties to have the one recruitment drive together to maximise publicity.

Subcom recruitment drives will be different since CSESoc Projects will recruit their subcom over the holidays, just like it did in 2021-2022.