Merge branch 'oss_2018' of http://softwarepublico.gov.br/gitlab/softwarepublico/…

…articles into oss_2018

Merge branch 'oss_2018' of http://softwarepublico.gov.br/gitlab/softwarepublico/…
…articles into oss_2018
Melissa Wen
2 parents 9d36f725 381200ea
Showing 1 changed file with 56 additions and 56 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
@@ -87,11 +87,11 @@ 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
+\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"}.
+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 
@@ -103,22 +103,22 @@ 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"}.
+\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
+\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"}.
+in the features''}.
 One of the main concerns of traditional approach is meticulous documentation of 
 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
+\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"}.
+see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those good points''}.
 \subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
@@ -126,97 +126,97 @@ 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}. \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
+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
+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
 the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important. According to
-one of them \textit{"Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
-understanding the needs of MPOG"}.
+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.
+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 [..] We gave this feedback fast and they also gave quick feedback
+for any our questions''}. 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}: \textit{"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 \textit{"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 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 \textbf{helped to reconcile development
-processes and decision making}, as stated by one of the respondent developers
-\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 \textit{"You had
-the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave
-you confidence and confidence in the code."}
+portal: UX, DevOps, System-of-Systems, and Social Networking. 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 our project development process. For 62.5\% this process
+has a good similarity to their previous experiences. Their experience
+\textbf{helped to reconcile development processes and decision making}, as
+stated by one of the respondent developers \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 \textit{"You had the reviewers, who were
+the original developers of the software, that gave 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 undergraduate-respondents during the
+with senior developers was important for all interns 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 \textit{"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
+of ``meta-coach'' was defined among the students, to coordinate the interactions
 between teams and coach to coordinate each front. Coaches have become a \textbf{point
 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\%}
+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 \textit{"I
-interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches"}, \textit{"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"}.
+to the senior developers''}.