shortening the benefits section

Melissa Wen
1 parent 1fd8e3fe
Showing 1 changed file with 36 additions and 40 deletions Show diff stats
ieeeSW/releaseEng3/IEEE_ThemeIssue_ReleaseEng_CD.md
@@ -214,47 +214,46 @@ Working with the government, we noticed the following additional benefits.
 Responsiveness was one of the direct benefits of adopting the CD pipeline. The
 ability to react quickly to changes requested by the government was vital for
 the renewal of the project over the years. Every meeting with the government
-leader resulted in new requirements, most of them motivated by political
-needs. These constant changes in requirements and priorities caused discomfort
-between the government and the development team. For
-example, the government leader required a complete layout change because he suddenly decided to make a marketing campaign about the new
-SPB portal. In future meetings, the government would use undelivered requirements as a means to justify the
-lack of financial support, which was already approved in the first place. We believed that if we took too
-long to attend their demands, the project would end. CD helped us keep the
-production environment up-to-date, even with partial versions of a feature. That
-way, we always had something to show on meetings, reducing anxiety to get the platform concluded. For our team, it made the developers more confident that the
-project would last a little longer and they would not go looking for other
-jobs.
+leader resulted in requirements and priorities changes, most of them motivated
+by political needs. We believed that if we took too long to attend their
+demands, the government would use undelivered requirements as a means to
+justify the lack of financial support and the end of the project.
+%
+CD helped us keep the production environment up-to-date, even with partial
+versions of a feature. That way, we always had something to show on meetings,
+reducing anxiety to get the platform concluded. For our team, it made the
+developers more confident that the project would last a little longer and they
+would not go looking for other jobs.
 ### Shared Responsibility
-Before the adoption of CD, the development team could not track what happened to the code
-after its delivery, since government technicians were the only responsible
-for deploying the project. The implementation of the referred
-approach influenced developers on taking ownership of the project because it
-made them feel equally responsible for what was getting into production.
+Initially, the development team could not track what happened to the code after
+its delivery, since government technicians were the only responsible for
+deploying the project. The implementation of CD made developers feel equally
+responsible for what was getting into production and take ownership of the
+project.
+%
+Interestingly, the CD pipeline had the same effect on the team of requirement
+analysts. They became more engaged on the whole process, opening and discussing
+issues during the platform evolution. Additionally, developers worked to improve
+the CD pipeline to speed up the process of making new features available in the
+production environment for analysts’ validation.
-Interestingly, the CD pipeline had the same effect on the team of requirement analysts.
-They were an active part of the pipeline and became more engaged on the whole process.
-After the incorporation of the pipeline into the work process, analysts
-became more active in opening and discussing issues during the platform evolution.
-Additionally, developers worked to improve the CD pipeline
-to speed up the process of making new features available in the production environment.
 ### Synchronicity Between Government and Development
 Despite the positive impacts that the CD pipeline brought to the project, its
-implementation was not easy at first. The CD pipeline performance
-depended on the synchronicity between developers and government
-analysts, so that the latter were prepared to start a step as soon as the
-former concluded the previous step, and vice versa. Initially, this concern was not
-contemplated in the agenda of the governmental team, which generated delays in
-the validation of new features. This situation combined with
-governmental bureaucracy (up to 3 days) to release access to the production
-environment resulted in additional delays for the deployment step to begin.
-This problem was softened when the analysts realized the impact of
-these delays on the final product and decided to allocate the revisions in its
-work schedule and to request the access to production in time.
+implementation was not easy at first. The CD pipeline performance depended on
+the synchronicity between developers and government analysts, so that the
+latter were prepared to start a step as soon as the former concluded the
+previous step, and vice versa. Initially, this concern was not contemplated
+in the agenda of the governmental team, which generated delays in the validation
+of new features. This situation combined with governmental bureaucracy
+(up to 3 days) to release access to the production environment resulted in
+additional delays for the deployment step to begin. This problem was softened
+when the analysts realized the impact of these delays on the final product and
+decided to allocate the revisions in its work schedule and to request the access
+to production in time.
 ### Strengthening Trust in Work Relationship with the Government
@@ -264,14 +263,11 @@ analysts group and its superiors. Before using CD, analysts had access to the
 features developed only at the end of the release, usually every four months.
 However, this periodicity did not meet the requirements of their leaders, who
 demanded monthly reports on the progress of the project.
-
+%
 With the implementation of CD, intermediate and candidate versions became
-available, allowing analysts to perform small validations over time. As they
-validated functionalities and sent feedback to developers, patches were
-developed and new versions were packaged and deployed to the VE quickly,
-steadily, and reliably. The constant monitoring of the development work brought
-greater security to the governmental nucleus and improved the interactions
-with our development team.
+available, allowing analysts to perform small validations over time. The
+constant monitoring of the development work brought greater security to the
+governmental nucleus and improved the interactions with our development team.
 ## Challenges
	@@ -214,47 +214,46 @@ Working with the government, we noticed the following additional benefits.		@@ -214,47 +214,46 @@ Working with the government, we noticed the following additional benefits.
214	Responsiveness was one of the direct benefits of adopting the CD pipeline. The	214	Responsiveness was one of the direct benefits of adopting the CD pipeline. The
215	ability to react quickly to changes requested by the government was vital for	215	ability to react quickly to changes requested by the government was vital for
216	the renewal of the project over the years. Every meeting with the government	216	the renewal of the project over the years. Every meeting with the government
217	-leader resulted in new requirements, most of them motivated by political
218	-needs. These constant changes in requirements and priorities caused discomfort
219	-between the government and the development team. For
220	-example, the government leader required a complete layout change because he suddenly decided to make a marketing campaign about the new
221	-SPB portal. In future meetings, the government would use undelivered requirements as a means to justify the
222	-lack of financial support, which was already approved in the first place. We believed that if we took too
223	-long to attend their demands, the project would end. CD helped us keep the
224	-production environment up-to-date, even with partial versions of a feature. That
225	-way, we always had something to show on meetings, reducing anxiety to get the platform concluded. For our team, it made the developers more confident that the
226	-project would last a little longer and they would not go looking for other
227	-jobs.	217	+leader resulted in requirements and priorities changes, most of them motivated
		218	+by political needs. We believed that if we took too long to attend their
		219	+demands, the government would use undelivered requirements as a means to
		220	+justify the lack of financial support and the end of the project.
		221	+%
		222	+CD helped us keep the production environment up-to-date, even with partial
		223	+versions of a feature. That way, we always had something to show on meetings,
		224	+reducing anxiety to get the platform concluded. For our team, it made the
		225	+developers more confident that the project would last a little longer and they
		226	+would not go looking for other jobs.
228		227
229	### Shared Responsibility	228	### Shared Responsibility
230		229
231	-Before the adoption of CD, the development team could not track what happened to the code
232	-after its delivery, since government technicians were the only responsible
233	-for deploying the project. The implementation of the referred
234	-approach influenced developers on taking ownership of the project because it
235	-made them feel equally responsible for what was getting into production.	230	+Initially, the development team could not track what happened to the code after
		231	+its delivery, since government technicians were the only responsible for
		232	+deploying the project. The implementation of CD made developers feel equally
		233	+responsible for what was getting into production and take ownership of the
		234	+project.
		235	+%
		236	+Interestingly, the CD pipeline had the same effect on the team of requirement
		237	+analysts. They became more engaged on the whole process, opening and discussing
		238	+issues during the platform evolution. Additionally, developers worked to improve
		239	+the CD pipeline to speed up the process of making new features available in the
		240	+production environment for analysts’ validation.
236		241
237	-Interestingly, the CD pipeline had the same effect on the team of requirement analysts.
238	-They were an active part of the pipeline and became more engaged on the whole process.
239	-After the incorporation of the pipeline into the work process, analysts
240	-became more active in opening and discussing issues during the platform evolution.
241	-Additionally, developers worked to improve the CD pipeline
242	-to speed up the process of making new features available in the production environment.
243		242
244	### Synchronicity Between Government and Development	243	### Synchronicity Between Government and Development
245		244
246	Despite the positive impacts that the CD pipeline brought to the project, its	245	Despite the positive impacts that the CD pipeline brought to the project, its
247	-implementation was not easy at first. The CD pipeline performance
248	-depended on the synchronicity between developers and government
249	-analysts, so that the latter were prepared to start a step as soon as the
250	-former concluded the previous step, and vice versa. Initially, this concern was not
251	-contemplated in the agenda of the governmental team, which generated delays in
252	-the validation of new features. This situation combined with
253	-governmental bureaucracy (up to 3 days) to release access to the production
254	-environment resulted in additional delays for the deployment step to begin.
255	-This problem was softened when the analysts realized the impact of
256	-these delays on the final product and decided to allocate the revisions in its
257	-work schedule and to request the access to production in time.	246	+implementation was not easy at first. The CD pipeline performance depended on
		247	+the synchronicity between developers and government analysts, so that the
		248	+latter were prepared to start a step as soon as the former concluded the
		249	+previous step, and vice versa. Initially, this concern was not contemplated
		250	+in the agenda of the governmental team, which generated delays in the validation
		251	+of new features. This situation combined with governmental bureaucracy
		252	+(up to 3 days) to release access to the production environment resulted in
		253	+additional delays for the deployment step to begin. This problem was softened
		254	+when the analysts realized the impact of these delays on the final product and
		255	+decided to allocate the revisions in its work schedule and to request the access
		256	+to production in time.
258		257
259	### Strengthening Trust in Work Relationship with the Government	258	### Strengthening Trust in Work Relationship with the Government
260		259
	@@ -264,14 +263,11 @@ analysts group and its superiors. Before using CD, analysts had access to the		@@ -264,14 +263,11 @@ analysts group and its superiors. Before using CD, analysts had access to the
264	features developed only at the end of the release, usually every four months.	263	features developed only at the end of the release, usually every four months.
265	However, this periodicity did not meet the requirements of their leaders, who	264	However, this periodicity did not meet the requirements of their leaders, who
266	demanded monthly reports on the progress of the project.	265	demanded monthly reports on the progress of the project.
267	-	266	+%
268	With the implementation of CD, intermediate and candidate versions became	267	With the implementation of CD, intermediate and candidate versions became
269	-available, allowing analysts to perform small validations over time. As they
270	-validated functionalities and sent feedback to developers, patches were
271	-developed and new versions were packaged and deployed to the VE quickly,
272	-steadily, and reliably. The constant monitoring of the development work brought
273	-greater security to the governmental nucleus and improved the interactions
274	-with our development team.	268	+available, allowing analysts to perform small validations over time. The
		269	+constant monitoring of the development work brought greater security to the
		270	+governmental nucleus and improved the interactions with our development team.
275		271
276	## Challenges	272	## Challenges
277		273