[oss-2018] review results as a whole

Melissa Wen
1 parent accfb9a5
Showing 1 changed file with 82 additions and 90 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
@@ -31,11 +31,10 @@ the platform under development using its integrated software components Gitlab
 and Mailman 
 \end{itemize} &
 \begin{itemize}
-\item Confidence in developed code; 
-\item Transparency and efficiency in communication;
-\item Easier monitoring and 
-increase interactions between development team and public servants;
-\item Organically documentation and records generation;
+\item Trusting developed code; 
+\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;
+\item Easier monitoring and increasing interactions between development team and public servants;
+\item Producting organically documentation and records;
 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
  
 \textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
@@ -46,10 +45,10 @@ were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
 bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
 \end{itemize} &
 \begin{itemize} 
-\item Reduce communication misunderstood and better meet expectations of both sides;
-\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff and increase their confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
-\item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities (Empathy between gov and academia side)
-\item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
+\item Reducing communication misunderstood and better meeting expectations of both sides;
+\item Overcoming the government bias regarding low productivity of collaboration with academia;
+\item Aligning both activities execution pace;
+\item Improving the translation of the process from one side to the other;
 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
  
 \textbf{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market specialists} &
@@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
 \item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams.
 \end{itemize} & 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item Helping conciliation of development processes and decision-making;
+\item Helping to reconciliate development processes and decision-making;
 \item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, and gov staff;
 \item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government;
 \end{itemize}\\ \hline
@@ -79,46 +78,47 @@ communication interactions to the platform under development. In short, Wiki
 feature was used for meeting logging, defining goals, sprint planning, and 
 documentation of deployment processes and administration resources guide. Issue 
 tracker was used for discussing requirements, monitoring the features under 
-development, registering changes, and validating functionalities delivered. The 
+development, registering changes, and validating functionalities delivered. Finally, the 
 whole team used Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and deliveries 
 and also to collaborative definition of requirements.
  
-Our surveys report a \textbf{transparency and efficiency in communication}. 
-Senior developers and students used mostly via Mailing list (100\%) and Issue 
-Tracker (62.5\%). Developers and MPOG staff interacted mostly via Mailing List 
-(87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%). For example, a MPOG IT analyst said that the 
-"communication goes far beyond that, you communicate to everyone in the project 
-everything that was happening. We did not use emails, we use the mailing list 
-more and avoid e-mails, it helped a lot because everything was public and did 
-not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to know something, could go there and look 
-at what was happening."
+Our surveys reports Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main means
+of interaction between senior developers and undergraduates. Developers and MPOG
+staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%).
+According to research findings, this movement made \textbf{communication more
+transparent and efficient}. A MPOG IT analyst said that the
+\textit{"Communicating well goes far beyond the speed, it is someone being able
+to communicate to everyone everything that is happening in the project. We did
+not use emails. We use more mailing list and avoid e-mails. It helped a lot
+because everything was public and did not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to
+know something, could go there and look at what was happening"}.
  
 Migrating to SPB platform also provided an \textbf{easier monitoring and 
 increase interactions between development team and public servants by 
-coordinators}. As shown by collected data, 775 issues and 4,658 issue comments 
-was registered during the project in the main repository (without considering 
-the software repositories that integrated the platform) within the SPB 
-platform. The issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG staff), and 
-commented by 64 different users (9 form MPOG staff and users). Considering the 
-most active issues those that have 10 or more comments, in a set of 84 issues, 
-MPOG staff authored 36 issue (about 43\% of 84 issues with higher level of 
-interaction). An MPOG analyst highlighted that “there was a lot of evolution, 
-a lot of communication via Gitlab". This interaction also led MPOG staff to 
-\textbf{confidence in developed code}: "Everything was validated, we tested the 
-features and the project was developed inside the platform, so that the feature 
-was validated in the development of the software itself. [..] From the moment 
-we installed it, and began to use it for development, this validation was 
-constant. We felt confident about the features".
+coordinators}. As shown by collected data, in the last 15 months of the project,
+775 issues and 4,658 issue comments was registered in the main repository
+(without considering the software repositories that integrated the platform)
+within the SPB platform. The issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG
+staff), and commented by 64 different users (9 form MPOG staff and users).
+Considering issues with higher level of interaction those that have 10 or more
+comments, in a set of 84 issues, MPOG staff authored 36 issues (which represents
+about 43\% of these most active issues). A MPOG analyst highlighted that
+\textit{"there was a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab"}.
+This interaction also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust developed code}:
+\textit{"Everything was validated, we tested the features and the project was
+developed inside the platform, so that the feature was validated in the
+development of the software itself. From the moment we installed it, and
+began to use it for development, this validation was constant. We felt confident
+in the features"}.
  
 One of the main concerns of traditional approach is meticulous documentation of 
-software and development steps. With this aforementioned practice, we could 
-meet this government demand without bureaucracies and changes in our 
-development process, generating \textbf{organically documentation and records 
-generation} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response evidenced: "For 
-me it was a lot of learning, there is a lot of things documented in the e-mails 
-and also there in the portal itself of what happened in the project. At any 
-moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the person did, and manages 
-to salvage those good points."
+the software designed and the development steps. With this aforementioned
+decision, we could meet this government demand without bureaucracies and changes
+in our development process, \textbf{producting organically documentation and
+records} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response evidenced:
+\textit{"For me, it was a lot of learning. There is a lot of things documented
+in the e-mails and also in the portal itself. At any moment we can go there and
+see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those good points"}.
  
 \subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
  
@@ -126,82 +126,86 @@ The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
 their superiors and in the dialogues with the development team that were
 intermediated by the superiors. They said that direct dialogue with the
 development team and biweekly visits to the university's lab  \textbf{reduce
-communication misunderstood}. "At this point, the communication started to
-change.. started to improve." According to one of the interviewees this new
-dynamic unified the two sides: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
+communication misunderstood}. \textit{"At this point, the communication started to
+change.. started to improve."} According to another interviewee, this new
+dynamic unified the two sides: \textit{"I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
 go there, to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more
-integration into the project". The participation of the MPOG staff was also
-considered positive by {72.9\%} of the students of them and to {81.1 \%} of them
+integration into the project"}. The participation of the MPOG staff was also
+considered positive by {72.9\%} of the undegraduates and to {81.1\%} of them
 think the presence of MPOG staff in sprint ceremonies was important for the
-development. In addition, to  \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
-regarding the requirements developed, {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing
+development. In addition, to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
+regarding the requirements developed, {75.6\%} of students believe that writing
 the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important. According to
-one of them "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
-understanding the needs of MPOG".
-
-One of the consequences of this direct government-academia interaction in
-laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees "You know people
-in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You
-already know who that person is, it's not just a name". This subjectively helped
-to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}. The teams' synchronization was
-reinforced with the implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The
-benefits of this approach were presented in our previous work \cite {?} and
-corroborate these research results. To 81.1\% of students and 75\% of senior
-developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
-motivator during the project.
+one of them \textit{"Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
+understanding the needs of MPOG"}.
+
+An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in
+laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees \textit{"You know
+people in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy.
+You already know who that person is, it's not just a name"}. This subjectively helped
+to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}, \textit{"When we went there,
+we knew the people and we realized that, on our side, we also felt more
+encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback to the teams. They did
+not stay there waiting. We gave this feedback fast and they also gave quick
+feedback for any our questions. That gave project agility, things flowed faster
+and better"}. The teams' synchronization was reinforced with the implementation
+of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The benefits of this approach were presented
+in our previous work \cite {?} and corroborate these research results. To 81.1\%
+of students and 75\% of senior developers, deploying new versions of the SPB
+portal in production was a motivator during the project.
  
 One of the MPOG analyst interviewed also noted these releases also helped to 
 \textbf{overcome the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative
-projects with academia}: ”At first, the government staff had a bias that
+projects with academia}: \textit{"At first, the government staff had a bias that
 universities do not deliver. We overcame that bias in the course of the project.
 We deliver a lot and with quality. Today, I think if we had paid the same amount
 for a company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality
-that was delivered with the price that was paid.” Additionally, the deployment
+that was delivered with the price that was paid."} Additionally, the deployment
 in production of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
-process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst ”We had an
+process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst \textit{"We had an
 overview at the strategic level. When we went down to the technical level, plan
 the release every four months was difficult. But in the end, I think this has
 not been a problem. A project you are delivering, the results are going to
 production, the code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project
-is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice”
+is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice"}.
  
 \subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market
 specialists}
  
-Four teams were defined to dedicated to the main development demands of the
+Four teams were formed to dedicated to the main development demands of the
 portal: UX, DevOps, Colab and Noosfero. External developers with vast experience
 in the SPB platform software components and professionals with experience in
 front-end and UX were hired. These professionals also contributed to 
 disseminate practices adopted in the industry and in the free software
 communities to other project members. {87.5\%} of seniors agreed with the
 project development process. For 62.5\% this process has a good similarity to
-their previous experiences. Their experience helped to \textbf{reconcile development
+their previous experiences. Their experience \textbf{helped to reconcile development
 processes and decision making}, as stated by one of the respondent developers
-"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
-MPOG staff and the UnB team". {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
+\textit{"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
+MPOG staff and the UnB team"}. {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
 collaborated in the relationship between the management and development
 processes of the two institutions and {62.5\%} asserted that helped MPOG
 staff to more clearly express their requests. {62.5\%} of them did not
 understand MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe their project
 productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process. For the
-government, these professionals gave credibility to the development "You had
+government, these professionals gave credibility to the development \textit{"You had
 the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave
-you confidence and confidence in the code."
+you confidence and confidence in the code."}
  
 In addition, with these professionals was possible to \textbf{transferred
 knowledge of industry and free software to government and academia}. Working
-with senior developers was important for all student-respondents during the
+with senior developers was important for all undergraduate-respondents during the
 project. {91\%} of them also believe that working with professionals was
 important for learning. {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in
 pairs with a senior' and 62.5\% that 'Participate in joint review tasks' were
 the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution
 of students in the project. And, in guiding a students, {75\%} believe that
 this knowledge was widespread among the others in the team. This acquisition
-of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated "On the side of
+of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated \textit{"On the side of
 UnB, what we perceived was that the project was very big leap when the
 original software developers were hired in the case of Noosfero and Colab,
 because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way and were
-able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
+able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly."}
  
 The fronts also gained more autonomy to manage their activities. The role
 of meta-coach was defined among the students, to coordinate the interactions
@@ -210,21 +214,9 @@ of reference for the development process}. {89.1\%} of students said that the
 presence of the coach was essential to the running of Sprint, and for {87.5\%}
 of senior developers coaches was essential for their interaction with the team.
 MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators for their activities and for
-communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said "I
-interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches.", " The reason
+communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said \textit{"I
+interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches"}, \textit{"The reason
 for this was that the coaches were more likely to meet the requirements, to
 ask questions about requirements, to understand some features. interaction with
 leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question
-to the senior developers. "
-
-
-%%* Filtrar a comunicação por níveis de maturidade/experiência e 
-%responsabilidades
-%%MPOG: "Eu acho que esses pontos de conflito eram muito mais fáceis de lidar 
-%com a equipe do que com a própria coordenação. [..] Eu acho que tem uma 
-%diferença também de papel tem uma diferença de postura. Eu acho que a 
-%relação com a equipe, embora ela fosse saudável, eu acho que a equipe não 
-%tinha tanta autonomia quanto à coordenação tinha. Então talvez fosse mais 
-%difícil com a coordenação e não com a equipe, porque a equipe ela sabia o 
-%limite dela e a partir dali ela não agia mais, ela já convocava a 
-%coordenação para lidar (a gerência)."
+to the senior developers"}.
...	...	@@ -31,11 +31,10 @@ the platform under development using its integrated software components Gitlab
31	31	and Mailman
32	32	\end{itemize} &
33	33	\begin{itemize}
34		-\item Confidence in developed code;
35		-\item Transparency and efficiency in communication;
36		-\item Easier monitoring and
37		-increase interactions between development team and public servants;
38		-\item Organically documentation and records generation;
	34	+\item Trusting developed code;
	35	+\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;
	36	+\item Easier monitoring and increasing interactions between development team and public servants;
	37	+\item Producting organically documentation and records;
39	38	\end{itemize} \\ \hline
40	39
41	40	\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
...	...	@@ -46,10 +45,10 @@ were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
46	45	bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
47	46	\end{itemize} &
48	47	\begin{itemize}
49		-\item Reduce communication misunderstood and better meet expectations of both sides;
50		-\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff and increase their confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
51		-\item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities (Empathy between gov and academia side)
52		-\item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
	48	+\item Reducing communication misunderstood and better meeting expectations of both sides;
	49	+\item Overcoming the government bias regarding low productivity of collaboration with academia;
	50	+\item Aligning both activities execution pace;
	51	+\item Improving the translation of the process from one side to the other;
53	52	\end{itemize} \\ \hline
54	53
55	54	\textbf{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market specialists} &
...	...	@@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
60	59	\item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams.
61	60	\end{itemize} &
62	61	\begin{itemize}
63		-\item Helping conciliation of development processes and decision-making;
	62	+\item Helping to reconciliate development processes and decision-making;
64	63	\item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, and gov staff;
65	64	\item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government;
66	65	\end{itemize}\\ \hline
...	...	@@ -79,46 +78,47 @@ communication interactions to the platform under development. In short, Wiki
79	78	feature was used for meeting logging, defining goals, sprint planning, and
80	79	documentation of deployment processes and administration resources guide. Issue
81	80	tracker was used for discussing requirements, monitoring the features under
82		-development, registering changes, and validating functionalities delivered. The
	81	+development, registering changes, and validating functionalities delivered. Finally, the
83	82	whole team used Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and deliveries
84	83	and also to collaborative definition of requirements.
85	84
86		-Our surveys report a \textbf{transparency and efficiency in communication}.
87		-Senior developers and students used mostly via Mailing list (100\%) and Issue
88		-Tracker (62.5\%). Developers and MPOG staff interacted mostly via Mailing List
89		-(87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%). For example, a MPOG IT analyst said that the
90		-"communication goes far beyond that, you communicate to everyone in the project
91		-everything that was happening. We did not use emails, we use the mailing list
92		-more and avoid e-mails, it helped a lot because everything was public and did
93		-not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to know something, could go there and look
94		-at what was happening."
	85	+Our surveys reports Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main means
	86	+of interaction between senior developers and undergraduates. Developers and MPOG
	87	+staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%).
	88	+According to research findings, this movement made \textbf{communication more
	89	+transparent and efficient}. A MPOG IT analyst said that the
	90	+\textit{"Communicating well goes far beyond the speed, it is someone being able
	91	+to communicate to everyone everything that is happening in the project. We did
	92	+not use emails. We use more mailing list and avoid e-mails. It helped a lot
	93	+because everything was public and did not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to
	94	+know something, could go there and look at what was happening"}.
95	95
96	96	Migrating to SPB platform also provided an \textbf{easier monitoring and
97	97	increase interactions between development team and public servants by
98		-coordinators}. As shown by collected data, 775 issues and 4,658 issue comments
99		-was registered during the project in the main repository (without considering
100		-the software repositories that integrated the platform) within the SPB
101		-platform. The issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG staff), and
102		-commented by 64 different users (9 form MPOG staff and users). Considering the
103		-most active issues those that have 10 or more comments, in a set of 84 issues,
104		-MPOG staff authored 36 issue (about 43\% of 84 issues with higher level of
105		-interaction). An MPOG analyst highlighted that “there was a lot of evolution,
106		-a lot of communication via Gitlab". This interaction also led MPOG staff to
107		-\textbf{confidence in developed code}: "Everything was validated, we tested the
108		-features and the project was developed inside the platform, so that the feature
109		-was validated in the development of the software itself. [..] From the moment
110		-we installed it, and began to use it for development, this validation was
111		-constant. We felt confident about the features".
	98	+coordinators}. As shown by collected data, in the last 15 months of the project,
	99	+775 issues and 4,658 issue comments was registered in the main repository
	100	+(without considering the software repositories that integrated the platform)
	101	+within the SPB platform. The issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG
	102	+staff), and commented by 64 different users (9 form MPOG staff and users).
	103	+Considering issues with higher level of interaction those that have 10 or more
	104	+comments, in a set of 84 issues, MPOG staff authored 36 issues (which represents
	105	+about 43\% of these most active issues). A MPOG analyst highlighted that
	106	+\textit{"there was a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab"}.
	107	+This interaction also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust developed code}:
	108	+\textit{"Everything was validated, we tested the features and the project was
	109	+developed inside the platform, so that the feature was validated in the
	110	+development of the software itself. From the moment we installed it, and
	111	+began to use it for development, this validation was constant. We felt confident
	112	+in the features"}.
112	113
113	114	One of the main concerns of traditional approach is meticulous documentation of
114		-software and development steps. With this aforementioned practice, we could
115		-meet this government demand without bureaucracies and changes in our
116		-development process, generating \textbf{organically documentation and records
117		-generation} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response evidenced: "For
118		-me it was a lot of learning, there is a lot of things documented in the e-mails
119		-and also there in the portal itself of what happened in the project. At any
120		-moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the person did, and manages
121		-to salvage those good points."
	115	+the software designed and the development steps. With this aforementioned
	116	+decision, we could meet this government demand without bureaucracies and changes
	117	+in our development process, \textbf{producting organically documentation and
	118	+records} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response evidenced:
	119	+\textit{"For me, it was a lot of learning. There is a lot of things documented
	120	+in the e-mails and also in the portal itself. At any moment we can go there and
	121	+see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those good points"}.
122	122
123	123	\subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
124	124
...	...	@@ -126,82 +126,86 @@ The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
126	126	their superiors and in the dialogues with the development team that were
127	127	intermediated by the superiors. They said that direct dialogue with the
128	128	development team and biweekly visits to the university's lab \textbf{reduce
129		-communication misunderstood}. "At this point, the communication started to
130		-change.. started to improve." According to one of the interviewees this new
131		-dynamic unified the two sides: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
	129	+communication misunderstood}. \textit{"At this point, the communication started to
	130	+change.. started to improve."} According to another interviewee, this new
	131	+dynamic unified the two sides: \textit{"I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
132	132	go there, to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more
133		-integration into the project". The participation of the MPOG staff was also
134		-considered positive by {72.9\%} of the students of them and to {81.1 \%} of them
	133	+integration into the project"}. The participation of the MPOG staff was also
	134	+considered positive by {72.9\%} of the undegraduates and to {81.1\%} of them
135	135	think the presence of MPOG staff in sprint ceremonies was important for the
136		-development. In addition, to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
137		-regarding the requirements developed, {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing
	136	+development. In addition, to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
	137	+regarding the requirements developed, {75.6\%} of students believe that writing
138	138	the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important. According to
139		-one of them "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
140		-understanding the needs of MPOG".
141		-
142		-One of the consequences of this direct government-academia interaction in
143		-laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees "You know people
144		-in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You
145		-already know who that person is, it's not just a name". This subjectively helped
146		-to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}. The teams' synchronization was
147		-reinforced with the implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The
148		-benefits of this approach were presented in our previous work \cite {?} and
149		-corroborate these research results. To 81.1\% of students and 75\% of senior
150		-developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
151		-motivator during the project.
	139	+one of them \textit{"Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
	140	+understanding the needs of MPOG"}.
	141	+
	142	+An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in
	143	+laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees \textit{"You know
	144	+people in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy.
	145	+You already know who that person is, it's not just a name"}. This subjectively helped
	146	+to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}, \textit{"When we went there,
	147	+we knew the people and we realized that, on our side, we also felt more
	148	+encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback to the teams. They did
	149	+not stay there waiting. We gave this feedback fast and they also gave quick
	150	+feedback for any our questions. That gave project agility, things flowed faster
	151	+and better"}. The teams' synchronization was reinforced with the implementation
	152	+of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The benefits of this approach were presented
	153	+in our previous work \cite {?} and corroborate these research results. To 81.1\%
	154	+of students and 75\% of senior developers, deploying new versions of the SPB
	155	+portal in production was a motivator during the project.
152	156
153	157	One of the MPOG analyst interviewed also noted these releases also helped to
154	158	\textbf{overcome the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative
155		-projects with academia}: ”At first, the government staff had a bias that
	159	+projects with academia}: \textit{"At first, the government staff had a bias that
156	160	universities do not deliver. We overcame that bias in the course of the project.
157	161	We deliver a lot and with quality. Today, I think if we had paid the same amount
158	162	for a company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality
159		-that was delivered with the price that was paid.” Additionally, the deployment
	163	+that was delivered with the price that was paid."} Additionally, the deployment
160	164	in production of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
161		-process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst ”We had an
	165	+process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst \textit{"We had an
162	166	overview at the strategic level. When we went down to the technical level, plan
163	167	the release every four months was difficult. But in the end, I think this has
164	168	not been a problem. A project you are delivering, the results are going to
165	169	production, the code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project
166		-is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice”
	170	+is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice"}.
167	171
168	172	\subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market
169	173	specialists}
170	174
171		-Four teams were defined to dedicated to the main development demands of the
	175	+Four teams were formed to dedicated to the main development demands of the
172	176	portal: UX, DevOps, Colab and Noosfero. External developers with vast experience
173	177	in the SPB platform software components and professionals with experience in
174	178	front-end and UX were hired. These professionals also contributed to
175	179	disseminate practices adopted in the industry and in the free software
176	180	communities to other project members. {87.5\%} of seniors agreed with the
177	181	project development process. For 62.5\% this process has a good similarity to
178		-their previous experiences. Their experience helped to \textbf{reconcile development
	182	+their previous experiences. Their experience \textbf{helped to reconcile development
179	183	processes and decision making}, as stated by one of the respondent developers
180		-"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
181		-MPOG staff and the UnB team". {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
	184	+\textit{"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
	185	+MPOG staff and the UnB team"}. {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
182	186	collaborated in the relationship between the management and development
183	187	processes of the two institutions and {62.5\%} asserted that helped MPOG
184	188	staff to more clearly express their requests. {62.5\%} of them did not
185	189	understand MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe their project
186	190	productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process. For the
187		-government, these professionals gave credibility to the development "You had
	191	+government, these professionals gave credibility to the development \textit{"You had
188	192	the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave
189		-you confidence and confidence in the code."
	193	+you confidence and confidence in the code."}
190	194
191	195	In addition, with these professionals was possible to \textbf{transferred
192	196	knowledge of industry and free software to government and academia}. Working
193		-with senior developers was important for all student-respondents during the
	197	+with senior developers was important for all undergraduate-respondents during the
194	198	project. {91\%} of them also believe that working with professionals was
195	199	important for learning. {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in
196	200	pairs with a senior' and 62.5\% that 'Participate in joint review tasks' were
197	201	the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution
198	202	of students in the project. And, in guiding a students, {75\%} believe that
199	203	this knowledge was widespread among the others in the team. This acquisition
200		-of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated "On the side of
	204	+of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated \textit{"On the side of
201	205	UnB, what we perceived was that the project was very big leap when the
202	206	original software developers were hired in the case of Noosfero and Colab,
203	207	because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way and were
204		-able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
	208	+able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly."}
205	209
206	210	The fronts also gained more autonomy to manage their activities. The role
207	211	of meta-coach was defined among the students, to coordinate the interactions
...	...	@@ -210,21 +214,9 @@ of reference for the development process}. {89.1\%} of students said that the
210	214	presence of the coach was essential to the running of Sprint, and for {87.5\%}
211	215	of senior developers coaches was essential for their interaction with the team.
212	216	MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators for their activities and for
213		-communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said "I
214		-interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches.", " The reason
	217	+communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said \textit{"I
	218	+interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches"}, \textit{"The reason
215	219	for this was that the coaches were more likely to meet the requirements, to
216	220	ask questions about requirements, to understand some features. interaction with
217	221	leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question
218		-to the senior developers. "
219		-
220		-
221		-%%* Filtrar a comunicação por níveis de maturidade/experiência e
222		-%responsabilidades
223		-%%MPOG: "Eu acho que esses pontos de conflito eram muito mais fáceis de lidar
224		-%com a equipe do que com a própria coordenação. [..] Eu acho que tem uma
225		-%diferença também de papel tem uma diferença de postura. Eu acho que a
226		-%relação com a equipe, embora ela fosse saudável, eu acho que a equipe não
227		-%tinha tanta autonomia quanto à coordenação tinha. Então talvez fosse mais
228		-%difícil com a coordenação e não com a equipe, porque a equipe ela sabia o
229		-%limite dela e a partir dali ela não agia mais, ela já convocava a
230		-%coordenação para lidar (a gerência)."
	222	+to the senior developers"}.
...	...