[ieeeSW] General review from Fabio's comments

Signed-off-by: Paulo Meirelles <paulo@softwarelivre.org> Signed-off-by: Melissa wen <melissa.srw@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com>

[ieeeSW] General review from Fabio's comments
Signed-off-by: Paulo Meirelles <paulo@softwarelivre.org> Signed-off-by: Melissa wen <melissa.srw@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com>
Paulo Meireles
1 parent 3b83c9d1
Showing 1 changed file with 225 additions and 274 deletions Show diff stats
ieeeSW/releaseEng3/IEEE_ThemeIssue_ReleaseEng_CD.md
-<!---
-Comment: "Having Gov in the title may turn off some readers. Maybe a title something like "Case study adapting CI to a large-scale, complex government organization" would allow it to cross over to non-gov large orgs."
-
-Siqueira/Paulo/Fabio: Ainda não chegamos a um título final, mas estamos em vias de convergir
--->
 ---
-title: "Continuous Delivery: building trust in a large-scale, complex government organization"
+title: "Continuous Delivery: Building Trust in a Large-scale, complex government organization"
 papersize: a4
 geometry: "left=1in,right=1.5in"
 ---
@@ -42,34 +37,27 @@ him at fabio.kon@ime.usp.br.
 For many software development teams, the first aspects that come to mind
 regarding Continuous Delivery (CD) are the operational challenges and the
-competitive benefits. In our experience, the CD was much more: it was a
-survival technique. This article presents how and why we applied CD in a
-Brazilian government project for the development of a Collaborative Development
+competitive benefits. In our experience, CD was much more: it was a survival
+technique. This article presents how and why we applied CD in a Brazilian
+government project for the development of a Collaborative Development
 Environment (CDE), sharing the challenges we faced and the strategies used to
 overcome them.
 ## Introduction
-<!---
-Comment: "Generally, the piece comes across as part advertisement for CI and part challenges paper. The authors should figure out their message and make it punch."
-Siqueira/Paulo: Ao meu ver, a introdução deixa bem claro o nosso "punch" e o resto do texto a gente desenrola bem isso
--->
-
-We worked on a thirty-month-long Brazilian government project to evolve an
-existing platform that had technical issues and lacked political support.  This
+We worked on a thirty-month-long Brazilian government project  to modernize the
+Brazilian Public Software (SPB) portal (www.softwarepublico.gov.br) [1].  This
 project, started in 2014, was a partnership between the Ministry of Planning,
-Budget, and Management (MP) and two public universities: University of Brasília
-(UnB) and University of São Paulo (USP), to modernize Brazilian Public Software
-(SPB) portal (www.softwarepublico.gov.br).
-
-With this partnership, the SPB portal evolved to a
-Collaborative Development Environment (CDE)[1], and this evolution brought
-significant benefits not just to the government, but also to society
-as a whole.  The government could minimize bureaucracy and costs of software
+Budget, and Management and two public universities: University of Brasília and
+University of São Paulo.
+
+With this partnership, the SPB portal evolved to a Collaborative Development
+Environment (CDE) [2] which brought significant benefits for the government and
+the society. The government could minimize bureaucracy and costs of software
 development, encouraging the use of the same set of applications across
-different government agencies. The society also gained a mechanism of
-transparency and collaboration, since anyone can check the government expenses
-on software and contribute to project communities. 
+different government agencies. The society gained a mechanism of transparency,
+follow government expenses, and collaboration, contribute to project
+communities. . 
 In this article, we discuss the use of Continuous Delivery (CD) during our
 experience as the academic partner in this project. We focus on how we managed
@@ -78,24 +66,17 @@ helped to build trust between the government and the university development
 team. CD enabled us to show our progress and earned the government’s confidence
 that we could adequately fulfill their requests, becoming an essential aspect
 of our interaction with them. According to this experience, the use of CD as a
-tool to build such trust relationships is yet another of its benefits[2].
+tool to build such trust relationships is yet another of its benefits [3].
 ## Context
-<!---
-Comment: "Background/intro - This could be more streamlined and focused. Maybe center around a question such as - What is different between gov and non-gov context using your data as to illustrate then tie that to what you had to do in your CI process to address this gap."
-
-Paulo: O ponto não foi gov e não gov. Vamos esclarecer que o SPB foi algo particular mesmo, cheio de nuâncias.
-
--->
-The SPB is a governmental program of the MP created to foster sharing and
-collaboration on Open Source Software (OSS) development for the Brazilian
-public administration. For their projects, the MP managed both software
-requirements and server infrastructure. However, its hierarchical and
-traditional processes made them unfamiliar with new software development
-techniques, such as CD. Any of our requests had to pass through layers of
-bureaucracy before being answered.  Requesting access to their infrastructure
-to make the deploy was not different.
+SPB is a governmental program created to foster sharing and collaboration on
+Open Source Software (OSS) development for the Brazilian public administration.
+For their projects, the Ministry managed both software requirements and server
+infrastructure. However, its hierarchical and traditional processes made them
+unfamiliar with new software development techniques, such as CD. Any of our
+requests had to pass through layers of bureaucracy before being answered,
+accessing their infrastructure to perform a deploy was not different.
 During its lifetime, the project suffered significant interference from the
 board of directors because the portal represents an interface between
@@ -106,126 +87,108 @@ directors had different political agendas which affected the project&#39;s
 requirements previously approved.
 <!---
-Comment:
-"The authors present 3 challenges in the intro and then go on to expand them. However, the expansion (line 21-43 in page 2), is has pints about all three challenges mixed together. It would be better I think to split it into one para for each challenge. "
-
-Siqueira/Paulo: Note que esse ponto gerou muita discussão e confusão. Mudei um pouco a estratégia de forma a responder o revisor e ao mesmo tempo tornar o texto mais fluido
-
-Melissa: Reformular o enunciado do primeiro problema (FEITO por Siqueira e Diego). 
+mudar em todas as ocorrências de agents por staff, mas checar com o Fabio.
 -->
-In this context, we overcame three distinct challenges: (1) find a system
-solution wherein government and development team agree, (2) deconstruct the
-widespread belief among the government agents that any project in partnership
-with a University is doomed to fail, and (3) deal with bureaucracies involved
-in the deployment process by the MP.
-
-<!---
-Comment: 
-
-"Some more details about the project that was developed in terms of what the project did could be shared. Right now it just seems like some platform. I am not sure a platform that does what? And why were these 5 tools (Noosfero, Gitlab, Mailman, Mezuro and Colab) were integrated? What purpose did they each serve?"
-
-Siqueira/Paulo: Contamos essa história sem ter que entrar em detalhes aqui. Contudo, será preciso fazer a seção de pipeline harmonizar com isso
--->
+In this context, we overcame three distinct challenges: (1) finding a system
+solution with which government and development team agree, (2) deconstructing
+the widespread belief among government staff that any project in partnership
+with a University is doomed to fail, and (3) dealing with bureaucracies
+involved in the deployment process by the Ministry.
+
+To face the first issue, we designed the SPB portal as a CDE with additional
+social features. Due to the complexity of creating such a system from scratch,
+we decided to adapt and integrate existing OSS tools to build a
+system-of-systems [4]. We created a solution that orchestrates multiple
+components and allowed us to smoothly provide a unified interface for final
+users, including single sign-on and global searches [1].  On top of that, the
+new SPB portal was an unprecedented platform to the Brazilian government, with
+a complicated deployment process.
+
+
+Regarding the second problem, our team was not from a typical company,
+consisting mainly of undergraduate students coordinated by two professors. In
+the first year, we had a group composed of 24 undergraduate students, one
+designer, and two senior developers. In 2015, our team grew to 36 students, two
+designers, eight senior developers. In the end, due to budget constraints, our
+team shrinked to 20 students, one designer, and two developers. On the
+government side, the SPB portal evolution was the first software development
+collaboration between university and government experienced by the Ministry
+staff involved in the project.
+
+Finally, our team thought software deployment differently than the Ministry. On
+our side, we believe that frequent deliveries are better for the project’s
+success.  However, the Ministry works with the idea of a single deployment at
+the end of the project. In other words, neither the bureaucratic structure of
+the Ministry nor its technical abilities were conducive to this style of work.
+Furthermore, there was little effort to deploy new versions of the system
+promptly. That ended up hampering the benefits of the tool and preventing us
+from showing off the fruits of the project to those responsible for evaluating
+it.
+
+These challenges made our relationship with the Ministry staff tense, in
+particular during the first year, and alerted us to the fact that they could
+finish the project at any time. The deployment limitation was the substantial
+technical issue we could tackle in the short term. As a result, we worked to
+deploy one version of the project onto our infrastructure and showed it to the
+government evaluators. This strategy proved them we could efficiently deliver
+new features, fulfill their expectations regarding the delivery of the
+requirements, and incited them to demand that the latest version be deployed in
+the Ministry infrastructure. This generated more pressure on the IT department
+responsible for the deployment routines. With each CD cycle, we gradually built
+a new relationship among all parties and, by the end of the project, we became
+active participants in the deploy operations.
-To face the first issue, we designed the SPB portal as a CDE with additional social features. Due
-to the complexity of creating such a system from scratch, we decided to adapt
-and integrate existing OSS tools to build a system-of-systems[1]. We created a
-solution that orchestrates software and allowed us to smoothly provide a
-unified interface for final users, including single sign-on and global searches.
-On top of that, the new SPB portal was an unprecedented platform to the
-Brazilian government, with a complicated deployment process.
+## Our Continuous Delivery Pipeline
-<!---
-Comment: "Can the authors provide some data as well? As I said this is a unique scenario and the community can greatly benefit. For example, how many devs at any given time, how many features/unit time (month/year), how frequently were releases made, how frequently did you meet with the client, how frequently did the requirements change are some example questions to which if we had data, it would place the study in greater context."
+![The SPB Deployment Pipeline](figures/pipeline_3.png)
-Siqueira/Paulo: Mostramos parte dos dados aqui e mais na frente falamos da mudança dupla da diretoria tmb
--->
+Figure 1 presents our CD pipeline. It follows a typical deployment pipeline
+[3], adapted to the technical and organizational context of our project and the
+use of OSS best practices. The pipeline started when new code arrived.  A new
+feature might require changes to more than one SPB integrated software project.
+Notice that each one of them could be modified independently. As the code went
+through each step, it was tested and improved until it finally reached the
+production environment. At this point, we would restart the pipeline to release
+more versions.
 <!---
-Comment:
-" In page 3, the authors say 10 SW components were integrated, but only 5 were presented in Page 2. I see in Page 3/4 that the authors mean that they used the the tools in page 2 to manage the building of the SW. But that is not clear. This needs to be clarified. "
+Comentário do Fábio: A partir daqui o texto já deveria mostrar o tamanho da plataforma e trazer dados que comprovem isso.
-Siqueira/Paulo: Isso aqui também fica resolvido
--->
-
-Regarding to the second problem, our team was not from a
-typical company, consisting mainly of undergraduate students coordinated by two
-professors. At the first year, we had a group composed of 24 undergraduate
-students, one designer, and two senior developers. In 2015, our team grew to 36
-students, two designers, eight senior developers. In the end, due to budget
-constraint, we had 20 students, one designer, and two developers. On the
-government side, the SPB portal evolution was the first software development
-collaboration between university and government experienced by the MP agents
-involved in the project.
-
-Lastly, our team thought software deployment differently than the MP. On our
-side, we believe that frequent deliveries are better for the project’s success.
-However, the MP works with the idea of a single deployment at the end of the
-project. In other words, neither the bureaucratic structure of the MP nor its
-technical abilities were conducive to this style of work. Furthermore, there
-was little effort to deploy new versions of the system promptly. That ended up
-hampering the benefits of the tool and preventing us from showing off the
-fruits of the project to those responsible for evaluating it.
+https://www.openhub.net/p/gitlab
+https://www.openhub.net/p/noosfero
+https://www.openhub.net/p/mezuro
+https://www.openhub.net/p/mailman
-<!---
-"the article is missing the ah,ha moment. Was there something interesting that you learned (could be a small thing) that you use to adapt the CI process when applying it in a gov or large org context versus a smaller org? "
-Siqueira/Paulo: eis o AH-HA moment!
 -->
-These challenges made our relationship with the MP agents tense, in particular
-at the first year, and alerted us to the fact that they could finish the
-project at any time. The deployment limitation was the substantial technical
-issue we could tackle in the short term. As a result, we worked to deploy one
-version of the project onto our infrastructure and showed it to the government
-evaluators. This strategy proved them we could efficiently deliver new
-features, fulfill their expectations regarding the delivery of the
-requirements, and incited them to demand the last version working in the MP
-infrastructure. These results, in turn, generated more pressure on the IT
-department responsible for the deployment routines. With each CD cycle, we
-gradually built a new relationship among all parties and, by the end of the
-project, we became active participants in the deploy operations.
-
-## Our Continuous Delivery Pipeline
-
-![Deployment Pipeline](figures/pipeline_3.png)
-
-Figure 1 represents our CD pipeline. It follows a typical deployment
-pipeline[5], adapted to the technical and organizational context of our project
-and the use of OSS projects practices. The pipeline started when a code arrived.
-A new feature might require changes to more than one SPB integrated software
-project. Notice that each one of them could be modified independently. As the
-code went through each step, it was tested and improved until it finally reached
-the production environment. At this point, we would restart the pipeline to
-release more versions.
-
 ### Automated Tests
 <!---
-Diego: Deixei a mini explicação usando o Colab porque achei que ainda faz sentido
-e está bem colocada. Se decidirmos tirar, teremos que repensar o parágrafo.
+No final do contexto, adicionar um parágrafo final falando que geramos o SPB de forma a integrar 5 sistemas e manter mais de 30 pacotes.
+Os 5 projetos são: Colab, Noosfero, Gitlab, MailMan, and Mezuro.
 -->
-The SPB portal is a system-of-systems with several integrated software
-projects.  Each of them, as well as the entire platform, had to be tested.
-These software components have own test suite. Colab (www.github.com/colab), a
-systems integration platform for web applications based on a plugins
-architecture, orchestrate communication between all of them. Therefore, we
-developed specific plugins for each portal software component, such as Gitlab
-(www.gitlab.com) and Noosfero (www.noosfero.org). Each plugin also has own test
-suite, and this set also worked as integration tests.
+The SPB portal is a system-of-systems with 5 integrated software projects. Each
+of them, as well as the entire platform, had to be tested. These software
+components have their own test suite. Colab (www.github.com/colab), a systems
+integration platform for web applications based on a plugin architecture,
+orchestrates communication among them. Therefore, we developed specific plugins
+for each portal software component, such as Gitlab (www.gitlab.com) and
+Noosfero (www.noosfero.org). Each plugin also has its own test suite, working
+also as integration tests.
 Both unit and integration tests provided us the performance and security needed
 to guarantee the stability of components and the platform. If any test suite
 failed, by either a test error or coverage reduction below a certain threshold,
 the process stopped. Only when all tests passed, the pipeline proceeded to the
-step of preparing the release.
+step of release preparation.
 ### Preparing a New Release
-An SPB portal release was composed of all its software components releases.
-Each software component release was a Git tag that referred to a specific
+An SPB portal release was composed of all its software component releases.
+Each software component release had a Git tag that referred to a specific
 feature or bug fix. When all tests passed for a given component, we manually
 created a new tag for it. Therefore, a new tag on any software component
 yielded a new SPB portal release. More precisely, SPB had a script that
@@ -234,206 +197,194 @@ the end of this process, we started packaging.
 ### Packaging
-The platform is running on the CentOS 7 GNU/Linux distribution.  Packaging a
-software for that distribution has three steps: write the script for the
-specific environment (RPM), build the package, and upload it to a package
+The platform runs on the CentOS 7 GNU/Linux distribution.  Packaging a software
+for that distribution involves three steps: writing the script for the specific
+environment (RPM), building the package, and uploading it to a package
 repository.
-We decided to create own packages for each software component for the following
-five reasons:
-
-1. The community packaged not all software, and those that existed were outdated;
-1. Packaging makes it easy to manage the software on a given distribution;
-1. Packaging simplifies the deployment;
-1. Packaging follows the distribution's best practices and,
-1. Packaging allows configurations and permissions control.
+We decided to create separate packages for each software component since:
+Packaging makes easy to manage the software on a given distribution,
+simplifies the deployment,  follows the distribution's best practices, and
+enables configurations and permissions control.
-After creating a new tag for one component, the developers informed our DevOps
+After creating a new tag for a component, the developers informed our DevOps
 [6] team, and the packaging process began. A set of scripts fully automated the
-three packaging steps aforementioned. With all them running successfully, the
-new packages would be ready to be used by our deployment scripts.
+three packaging steps aforementioned. When all them ran successfully, the new
+packages would be ready for our deployment scripts.
 ### Validation Environment Deployment
-The Validation Environment (VE) is a replica of the Production Environment
-(PE), with two exceptions: only the government officers and project leaders had
-access to it and all the data became anonymous. To configure the environment,
-we used a configuration management tool named Chef with Chake support
-(www.github.com/terceiro/chake) -- a serverless configuration created by our
-team). It maintained environment consistency simplifying the deployment
+The Validation Environment (VE) is a replica of the Production Environment (PE)
+with its data anonymised, as well as only Ministry staffs and our DevOps team
+had access to it. To configure the environment, we used a configuration
+management tool named Chef (www.chef.io) with Chake support
+(www.github.com/terceiro/chake) -- a serverless configuration tool created by
+our team. It maintained environment consistency simplifying the deployment
 process.  Additionally, the packages we built on the last step were readily
-available to be used by the management tool.
+available to the management tool.
-The MP agents used the VE to validate new features and required changes. The VE
-also was used to verify the integrity of the entire portal as part of the next
-step in the pipeline.
+The Ministry staff used the VE to validate new features and required changes.
+The VE also was used to verify the integrity of the entire portal as part of
+the next step in the pipeline.
 ### Acceptance Tests
-After we deployed a new SPB portal version in the VE, the MP agents were
-responsible for checking features and bug fixes required by them. If the
-MP agents identified a problem, they would notify the developers via
+After we deployed a new SPB portal version in the VE, the Ministry staffs were
+responsible for checking the features and bug fixes they required. If the
+Ministry staffs identified a problem, they would notify the developers via
 comments on the SPB portal's issue tracker. The development team fixed the
-problem and the pipeline restarted from scratch. If everything was validated,
-we moved forward.
+problem and the pipeline restarted. If everything was validated, we moved
+forward.
 ### Production Environment Deployment
-When the MP agents finished the VE check, we could finally begin the deployment
-in the PE. For this, we also used our configuration management tool, the same
-scripts and package versions as in the VE. After the deploy was completed, both
-VE and PE were running identical software. Here was the point where new
-features and bug fixes were finally available to the end users.
+When the Ministry staff finished the VE check, we could finally begin the
+deployment in production. We also used our configuration management tool, the
+same scripts and package versions as in the VE. After the deploy was completed,
+both VE and PE were identical. Here was the point where new features and bug
+fixes were finally available to end users.
 ## Benefits
-Research points out many advantages of CD usage in the industry[2, 7], such as
+Research points out many CD advantages in the industry [2, 7], such as
 accelerated time to market, building the right product, productivity and
 efficiency improvements, stable releases, and better customer satisfaction.
 Working with the government, we noticed the following additional benefits.
-### Strengthening Trust in Work Relationship with the Government
+### Strengthening Trust in the Relationship with the Government
-Continuous delivery was also a tool that helped to strengthen trust in the
-relationship between developers and MP agents. Before using CD, the MP agents
-had access to the features developed only at the end of the release, usually
-every four months.
+CD helped to strengthen trust in the relationship between developers and
+Ministry staffs. Before using CD, Ministry staff had access to the features
+developed only at the end of the release, usually every four months.
 With the implementation of CD, intermediate and candidate versions became
-available, allowing the MP agents to perform small validations over time. The
-constant monitoring of the development work brought greater security to the MP
-leaders and improved the interactions with our development team.
+available, allowing Ministry staffs to perform small validations over time.
+Constant monitoring of the development work brought greater security to the
+Ministry leaders and improved the interactions with our development team.
 ### Responsiveness to Change
 Responsiveness was one of the direct benefits of adopting the CD pipeline. The
-ability to react quickly to changes requested by the MP agents was vital for
-the renewal of the project over the years. Every meeting with the MP leaders
-resulted in requirements and priorities changes, several of them motivated by
-political needs. We observed that if we took too long to attend their demands,
-the MP 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.
+ability to react quickly to changes requested by the Ministry staff was vital
+to the project’s survival for 30 months. Every meeting with the Ministry
+leaders resulted in requirements and priorities changes, several of them
+motivated by political needs. We observed that if we took too long to meet
+their demands, the Ministry would use undelivered requirements to justify cut
+in the financial support and cancel the project.
+
+CD helped us keep the PE up-to-date, even with partial versions of a feature.
+That way, we always had something to show on meetings, reducing anxiety in
+getting the platform finished. For our team, it made the developers more
+confident that the project would last a little longer.
 ### Shared Responsibility
-According to the MP process, the development team could not track what happened
-to the code after its delivery, since the MP agents were the only ones
-responsible for deployment. The implementation of CD made our development team
-feel equally responsible for what was getting into production and take
-ownership of the project.
+According to the conventional Ministry process, the development team could not
+track what happened to the code after its delivery, since Ministry staff were
+the only ones responsible for deployment. The implementation of CD made our
+development team 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 MP agents. They
+Interestingly, the CD pipeline had the same effect on the Ministry staff. They
 became more engaged in 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 the MP agents' validation.
+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 the Ministry staff's validation.
 ### Synchronicity Between Government and Development
-Despite the positive impacts that the CD pipeline brought to the project, its
-implementation was not smooth at first. The CD pipeline performance depended on
-the synchronicity between our development team and the MP agents so that the
-latter were prepared to start a step as soon as the former concluded the
-previous step and vice versa. Initially, the agenda of the MP agents did not
-contemplate this concern, 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 MP
-agents 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.
-
-## Challenges
-
-Due to the successful building of the CD pipeline, we improved the MP
-deployment process and kept the project alive. We map here lessons learned in
-this successful case.
+The CD pipeline performance depended on the synchronicity between our
+development team and the Ministry staffs so that the latter were prepared to
+start a step as soon as the former concluded the previous step and vice versa.
+Initially, the agenda of the Ministry staffs did not contemplate this concern,
+which generated delays in the validation of new features. This situation
+combined with governmental bureaucracy to release access to the production
+environment (up to 3 days) resulted in additional delays for the deployment
+step begin. This problem was softened when the Ministry staff realized the
+impact of these delays on the final product and decided to allocate the
+revisions in their work schedule.
+
+<!---
+Fabio sugeriu Lessons Learned, mas vamos mostrar exemplos da revista para ele olhar.
+-->
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+Due to the successful building of the CD pipeline, we improved the Ministry
+deployment process and kept the project alive. We map now lessons learned.
 ### Build CD From Scratch
 Taking on responsibilities for implementing CD impacted on the whole team.
 Mostly, our team members did not have know-how in this approach, and we had few
-working hours available to allocate for the building of the pipeline. The
-construction and maintenance of the CD process were possible by taking some
-decisions to mature the project:
+working hours available to allocate for building the pipeline. The construction
+and maintenance of the CD process were possible by taking some decisions to
+mature the project:
-1. _Select the most experienced senior developers and some advanced software
-engineering students of the project to work on a specific team for DevOps._
-These senior developers used their experiences in OSS projects to get an
-initial proposal for the deployment process. The solution enabled us to
-automate the deployment, even though the process was still rudimentary.
+<!---
+pensar em generalizar/filosofar
+-->
+
+1. _Select the most experienced senior developers and some advanced students of
+the project to work on a specific DevOps team._These senior developers used
+their experiences in OSS projects to craft an initial proposal for the
+deployment process. The solution enabled us to automate the deployment, even
+though the process was, initially, still rudimentary.
-2. _Interchange team members and encouraging teammates to migrate to DevOps
+2. _Interchange team members and encourage teammates to migrate to the DevOps
 team._ The benefits of these movements were twofold: mitigating the difficulty
-to pass the knowledge between DevOps developers and features developers, and
+to transmit the knowledge between DevOps developers and feature developers, and
 evolving the process on-the-fly.
-Building a CD pipeline was hard in the beginning. We believe that more tools to
-provide out-of-the-box standardized CD pipelines would be of great help for
-inexperienced teams. Tools that track each step of the pipeline and organize
-logs in a human-manageable way are necessary too.
-
 ### Overcoming Mistrust
-Taking an unfamiliar approach requires trust. In the MP, software is the
-product delivered at the end of a development contract. They expected and were
-prepared to validate and deploy a single delivery. Because the SPB portal is a
-system-of-systems, the steady growth of its complexity made large deliveries
-unsustainable. The long time for homologation of developed features also gave
-the government room to change requirements and priorities.  The CD approach was
-necessary, but how to build trust and gain autonomy to implement a process that
-was not yet part of the dynamics of the Ministry?
+Taking an unfamiliar approach requires trust. In the Ministry, traditional
+software was the product delivered at the end of a development contract. They
+expected and were prepared to validate and deploy a single delivery. Because
+the SPB portal is a system-of-systems, the steady growth of its complexity made
+large deliveries unsustainable. The long time for homologation of developed
+features also gave the government room to change requirements and priorities.
+The CD approach was necessary, but how to build trust and gain autonomy to
+implement a process that was not yet part of the dynamics of the Ministry?
 1. _Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell._ Initially, we did not have
-access to the MP infrastructure, so we created our own validation environment.
-Thus, we were able to follow the CD pipeline until the stage of production
-deployment, when we faced two problems. Our pace of intermediate deliveries to
-the government was faster than the deployment in production by the MP
-agents. Furthermore, specific issues of the MP infrastructure made some
-validated features not work as expected in the PE. That situation gave us
-arguments to negotiate access to PE.
-
-2. _Make our project management transparent and collaborative for the MP
-agents._ Allowing the MP agents to follow our process for version deliveries
-and bug fixes, we showed them we were meeting our commitments. They started to
-interact more actively in the generation of versions and became part of the
-process. After understanding the process, the MP agents helped us in
-negotiations with the MP leaders. Finally, they created a VE as
-an isolated replica of PE and gave us access to it.
-
-3. _Gain the confidence of government agents._ With the replica of PE, we were
-able to run the entire pipeline and won the trust of the MP agents involved in
-the process. They saw the mobilization and responsiveness of our team to
-generate a new version package. They also recognized the quality of our
-packages and our deployment process. Finally, the MP agents then realized that
-it could be beneficial for the project if they granted us access to the project
+access to the Ministry infrastructure, so we created our own validation
+environment.  Thus, we were able to follow the CD pipeline until the stage of
+production deployment, when we faced two problems. First, our pace of
+intermediate deliveries to the government was faster than the deployment in
+production by the Ministry staff. Second, specific issues of the Ministry
+infrastructure made some validated features not work as expected in the PE.
+That situation gave us arguments to negotiate access to production.
+
+2. _Make project management transparent and collaborative for government
+staff._ Allowing the Ministry staff to follow our process for version
+deliveries and bug fixes, we showed them we were fulfilling our commitments.
+They started to interact more actively in the generation of versions and became
+part of the process. After understanding the process, the Ministry staff helped
+us in negotiations with the Ministry leaders. Finally, they created a VE as an
+isolated replica of the PE and gave us access to it.
+
+3. _Gain the confidence of government staff._ With the replica of the PE, we
+were able to run the entire pipeline and won the trust of the Ministry staff
+involved in the process. They saw the mobilization and responsiveness of our
+team to generate a new version package. They also recognized the quality of our
+packages and our deployment process. Finally, the Ministry staff then realized
+that it could be beneficial for the project if they granted us access to the
 infrastructure, both VE and PE.
 <!---
-Paulo: Acho que precisamos de algo ligado ao Ha-Ha-moment para fechar o texto aqui.
+Paulo: Acho que precisamos de algo ligado ao Ha-Ha-moment para fechar o texto aqui; ou fechar falando que tudo foi feito de forma aberta e colaborativa com as comunidades dos projetos envolvidos, estão todos os fontes disponíveis em https://softwarepublico.gov.br/gitlab/softwarepublico/ 
 -->
 ## References
-1. P .Meirelles, M. Wen, A. Terceiro, R. Siqueira, L. Kanashiro, and H. Neri, "Brazilian Public Software Portal: an integrated platform for collaborative development", Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. ACM, Article 16, 2017, 10 pages.
+1. P. Meirelles, M. Wen, A. Terceiro, R. Siqueira, L. Kanashiro, and H. Neri, "Brazilian Public Software Portal: an integrated platform for collaborative development", Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. ACM, Article 16, 2017, 10 pages.
+1. G. Booch and A. Brown, A. W. "Collaborative Development Environments", Advances in Computers, vol. 59, 2003, pp. 1-27.
 1. L. Chen, "Continuous Delivery: Huge Benefits, but Challenges Too", IEEE Software, vol. 32, no. 2, 2015, pp. 50-54.
+1. C. B. Nielsen, P. G. Larsen, J. Fitzgerald, J. Woodcock, and J. Peleska, "Systems of Systems Engineering: Basic Concepts, Model-Based Techniques, and Research Directions", ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 2, Article 18, 2015, 41 pages.
 1. J. Humble and D. Farley, "Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation", Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010.
 1. J. Davis and K. Daniels, "Effective Devops: Building a Culture of Collaboration, Affinity, and Tooling at Scale", O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2016.
 1. T. Savor, M. Douglas, M. Gentili, L. Williams, K. Beck and M. Stumm, "Continuous Deployment at Facebook and OANDA", 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), Austin, TX, 2016, pp. 21-30.
-<!---
-Paulo: Entendo que neste tipo de texto não precisamos de referências para conceituar CDE e SoS
-
-1. G. Booch and A. Brown, A. W. "Collaborative Development Environments", Advances in Computers, vol. 59, 2003, pp. 1-27.
-1. C. B. Nielsen, P. G. Larsen, J. Fitzgerald, J. Woodcock, and J. Peleska, "Systems of Systems Engineering: Basic Concepts, Model-Based Techniques, and Research Directions", ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 2, Article 18, 2015, 41 pages.
-
--->
-