[oss-2018] grammarly results

Melissa Wen
1 parent 9bc68b0f
Showing 1 changed file with 20 additions and 20 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/05-results.tex
@@ -24,14 +24,14 @@ 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. Finally, the 
-whole team used Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and deliveries 
-and also to collaborative definition of requirements.
+whole team used the Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and deliveries 
+and also to the collaborative definition of requirements.
-Our surveys reports Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main means
+Our surveys report 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
+transparent and efficient}. An 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
@@ -39,22 +39,22 @@ 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 
+increase interactions between the development team and public servants by 
 coordinators}. As shown by collected data, in the last 15 months of the project,
 the issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG
 staff), and commented by 64 different users (9 from MPOG staff and users).
-Considering issues with higher level of interaction those that have 10 or more
+Considering issues with a higher level of interaction those that have 10 or more
 comments, in a set of 102 issues, MPOG staff authored 43 issues (which represents
-42\% of these most active issues). A MPOG analyst highlighted that
+42\% of these most active issues). An 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
+\textit{``Everything was validated, we tested the features and developed the project
+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 
+One of the main concerns of traditional approaches 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
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those good points&#39;&#39;
 \subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
 The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
-their superiors and in the dialogues with the development team that were
+their superiors and in dialogues with the development team,
 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
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ change.. started to improve&#39;&#39;}. 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 undegraduates and to {81.1\%} of them
+considered positive by {72.9\%} of the undergraduates 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
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ 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''}.
-An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in
+An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in the
 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
@@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ were presented in our previous work \cite{siqueira2018cd} and corroborate these 
 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
+One of the MPOG analysts interviewed also noted these releases also helped to 
+\textbf{overcome the government bias regarding the low productivity of collaborative
 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
@@ -135,14 +135,14 @@ 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
+In addition, with these professionals was possible to \textbf{transfer
+knowledge from industry and open source communities to government and academia}. Working
 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
+of students in the project. And, in guiding 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
 UnB, what we perceived was that the project was very big leap when the
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ The fronts also gained more autonomy to manage their activities. The role
 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 a 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