[oss-2018] Review results explanation of first decision

Melissa Wen
1 parent bb0deb37
Showing 1 changed file with 326 additions and 203 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
 \section{Results}
 \label{sec:results}
  
-\subsection{RQ1. Practices to well combine different teams with different
-management processes in a government-academia collaboration}
-
+%TODO: Talvez esse paragráfo tem que está no Research Design
+%%
 The case study was analyzed and divided into two phases according to the project
-management model. In the second phase (after one year(?) of execution), several
+management model. In the second phase (after one year of execution), several
 practices have been applied to harmonize the cultural and organizational
-divergences of the institutions involved. At the end of the project, an empirical
+divergences of the institutions involved.
+%%
+At the end of the project, an empirical
 model of management and development process was created by aligning experiences
 from the FLOSS universe, academic research and bureaucracies needed by the
 government. In this section, we present by context the practices adopted in this
-second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment.
+second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment, as summarized 
+in the Table \ref{practices-table}.
  
 \begin{table}[]
 \centering
@@ -19,218 +21,339 @@ second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment.
 \begin{tabular}{ | m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} | } 
 \hline
 \textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline
-\textbf{Project management and communication on the developing platform itself} & \begin{itemize} \item Migration of project management and communication into 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; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
-\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & \begin{itemize} \item Creation of DevOps Team to build Continuous Delivery pipeline which involves both side participation. \item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
-\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} & \begin{itemize} \item The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization of tasks. \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely. \item For each front, there was at least one senior developer and the role of coach. \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 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
-\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize} \item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements; \item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
+\textbf{Project management and communication on the developing platform itself} 
+& \begin{itemize} \item Migration of project management and communication into 
+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; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
+\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & \begin{itemize} \item Creation of DevOps Team to 
+build Continuous Delivery pipeline which involves both side participation. 
+\item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its 
+infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item 
+Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the 
+university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps 
+and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item 
+Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving 
+translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
+\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} & \begin{itemize} \item 
+The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization 
+of tasks. \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each 
+front were hired to work in person or remotely. \item For each front, there was 
+at least one senior developer and the role of coach. \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 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
+\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize} 
+\item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and 
+review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development 
+were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or 
+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} 
+\item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on 
+both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements; 
+\item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the 
+government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related 
+activities; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
 \end{tabular}%
 }
 \caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
-\label{practice-table}
+\label{practices-table}
 \end{table}
  
 \subsubsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
 itself}
+\hfill
  
-\begin{itemize}
-  \item \textit{Migration from Redmine management to Gitlab (one of the
-integrated software):} 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, registrating changes,
-and validating functionalities delivered.
-  \item \textit{Using the project mailing list provided by Mailman's platform:}
-Scheduling meetings and defining schedule. Through the list, brainstorms and
-collaborative definition of requirements also happened.
-\end{itemize}
-
-Data from Gitlab shows 775 issues were opened and 4658 comments were made in the
-repository that versioned the platform (without considering the software
-repositories that integrated the platform) within the SPB platform. The issues
-were created by 59 different authors (8 MPOG representatives), and commented by
-64 different users (9 MPOG users). {\~43\%} of the 84 issues with higher level
-of interaction (10 or more comments) are authored by one of MPOG staff. 
-Students said the main communication ways used to interacte
-with software communities were: IRC (86.5\%); Mailing list (73\%); Issues
-(67.6\%). The main means of communication between senior developers and
-students was IRC (100\%), Mailing list (100\%), Videoconference (100\%) and
-Issue Tracker (62.5\%). Senior developers and MPOG staff interected mostly via
-Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%). One of the interviewed MPOG
-staff ratifies the main interaction spaces between teams: "We interacted a lot
-with mailing lists and chatting, sometimes with gitlab within the line of
-development."
-%
-\paragraph{Benefits}
-
-\begin{itemize}
-  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-  \item \textit{Confidence in developed code} 
-    \subitem One of the gov-side interviewees said "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. Our team at
-MPOG, used the development and communication tools of the platform itself. From
-the moment we installed it, and began to use it for development, this validation
-was constant. We felt confident about the features"
-  \item \textit{Transparency and efficiency in communication}
-    \subitem Undegraduate student response: "We always had an open channel for
-conversations / interactions, whether it was the project issues, the IRC
-channel, via Whatsapp, etc."
-    \subitem MPOG: "I think the communication was excellent, it was comprehensive,
-instantaneous and effective. We asked a question, a question, and very quickly
-it was answered. Communication goes far beyond that, you communicate to everyone
-in the project everything that was happening. We did not have issue related to
-emails, use the mailing list more and avoid e-mails, it helped a lot because it
-was all public and did not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to know something,
-could go there and look at what was happening. We also had instant chatting,
-where the team stayed online, working connected. We had a quick access to the
-team. This makes all the difference in a project."
-  \item \textit{Monitoring of interactions among students, senior developers and
-public servants by coordinators}
-    \subitem MPOG: "The leader himself informed us who was doing something, then we
-talked directly to that student [..] But this interaction was not very frequent,
-sometimes we would ask something on the list and the coordinator would answer
-first."
-  \item \textit{Increase interaction between development team and contract
-management team}
-    \subitem MPOG: "There was a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab"
-  \item \textit{Organically documentation and records generation}
-    \subitem MPOG: "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."
-\end{itemize}
-
-\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
+After nine months of project activities, the first version of new SPB Portal was
+released. From this point, we started to migrate the management and 
+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 
+whole team used Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and deliveries 
+and also to collaborative definition of requirements.
  
-\begin{itemize}
- \item \textit{Creating DevOps Team}
- \item \textit{Defining continuous delivery pipeline}
- \item \textit{DevOps team periodically going to the ministry to help deploy each version}
-\end{itemize}
+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."
  
-\paragraph{Benefits}
+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".
  
-\begin{itemize}
-  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-  \item \textit{Increase government confidence for collaborative projects with the
-university}
-    \subitem MPOG: "At first the government staff had a bias that universities did
-not deliver and we overcame that bias in the course of the project. We deliver a
-lot and with quality. Today, I think that 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."
-  \item \textit{Motivate teams}
-    \subitem {81.1\%} of students think new versions released in production motivated
-them during the project
-    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers think new versions released in production
-motivated them during the project
-    \subitem {81\%} of students think the presence of a specific DevOps team was
-necessary for the project
-  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries from
-the academic team to the government infrastructure team}
-    \subitem MPOG: "I only noticed positive aspects in the delivery. I think in the
-interaction, we had a lot of support to be able to deploy. From the time that
-the version was mature, which had already been tested in the UnB test
-environment and was ready to be put into production, we had a great agility to
-release in production. Then in the course of the project we realized that the
-infrastructure team [of MPOG] started to trust the UnB team a lot. Because, for
-you to put software in production in government, there is a whole process
-behind. The government has much of this security issue."
-    \subitem MPOG: "If there was anything stopping the business from working, the
-software working inside, we would ask the seniors for support so we could
-investigate that, and the infrastructure team was also instructed to prioritize
-it. So when it came to an impasse, the teams were all together, both from within
-MPOG as well as senior developers and other UnB developers to unlock, to find
-the problem."
-  \item \textit{Align the university and government teams pace in the execution of
-the activities}
-    \subitem MPOG: "In the beginning, infrastructure personnel were not accustomed
-to deliveries so fast. They had to adapt to this pace. The portal of the SPB
-before the project was not there [in the MPOG infrastructure], it was in another
-place, they did not have that dynamics there. But what they asked for UnB (some
-configuration, installation manual, how to install everything inside) was
-requested and delivered."
-  \item \textit{Improve translation from one development process to the other}
-    \subitem MPOG: "We had an overview at the strategic level, but when we went down
-to the level of functionality we had this difficulty to do the planning of the
-release every four months. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem,
-because 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, because the result is being delivered.
-\end{itemize}
+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."
  
-\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
-undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
-
-\begin{itemize}
-  \item \textit{Four fronts: Colab, Noosfero, DevOps and Front-End/UX}
-  \item \textit{Definition of the role of team coaches and meta-coach, selected from undergraduate students group}
-  \item \textit{Hiring professionals from the IT market for face-to-face or remote work, specialists in the software components}
-\end{itemize}
-
-\paragraph{Benefits}
-
-\begin{itemize}
-  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-  \item \textit{Help to conciliate development processes and decision-making}
-    \subitem {62,5\%} of senior developers believe they have helped MPOG staff to more clearly express their requests
-    \subitem {87,5\%} of seniors agreed with the project development process. For 37.5\% this process was little similar to their previous experiences, for the others there was a certain similarity.
-    \subitem {62,5\%} of seniors did not understand MPOG's project management process. {50\%} of them believe their project productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process.
-    \subitem Senior Dev: "I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team"
-    \subitem Senior Dev: "When I entered the project, the client had a disproportionate view of how to make explicit the requirements. They were still talking about use cases and were extremely concerned about validation processes and acceptance of these documents."
-    \subitem MPOG: "You had the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave you confidence and confidence in the code."
+%\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
 %
-  \item \textit{Create support and reference points for students, senior developers, and government staff}
-    \subitem {89.1\%} of students believe that the presence of the leader was essential to the running of Sprint
-    \subitem {87.5\%} of seniors believe that the presence of team leaders was essential for their interaction with the team
-    \subitem MPOG: "It interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches (noosfero, colab, visual identity). Interacted with coaches by mailing list, hangouts The reason was usually to elucidate requirements, to ask questions about requirements, to understand some functionality. "
-    \subitem MPOG: "There was interaction with the other [non-coaches] because they also participated in the bi-weekly meetings (sprints), but it was more with coaches."
-    \subitem MPOG: "Access to coaches was faster, because we were in much more interaction with leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question to the senior developers."
+%\begin{itemize}
+% \item \textit{Creating DevOps Team}
+% \item \textit{Defining continuous delivery pipeline}
+% \item \textit{DevOps team periodically going to the ministry to help deploy 
+%each version}
+%\end{itemize}
 %
-  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government}
-    \subitem {62.5\%} of senior developers believe that they have collaborated in the relationship between the management and development processes of the two institutions
-    \subitem {100\%} of the students we interviewed believe that working with senior developers was important during the project
-    \subitem {91.\%} of students also believe that working with seniors was important for learning
-    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in pairs with a senior' and 62.5% who 'Participate in joint review tasks' were the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution of students in the project.
-    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that in guiding a student, this knowledge was widespread among the other students on the team.
-    \subitem MPOG: "On the side of UnB, what we perceived so strongly was that the project took a very big leap when the original developers of the software (the official software development) 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 "
-\end{itemize}
-
-%* 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)."
-
-\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the project together with development team}
-\begin{itemize}
-\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior developers}
-\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue Tracker}
-\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the directors/secretaries}
-\end{itemize}
-
-\paragraph{Benefits}
-
-\begin{itemize}
-  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-  \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
-    \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The [MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
+%\paragraph{Benefits}
+%
+%\begin{itemize}
+%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
+%  \item \textit{Increase government confidence for collaborative projects with 
+%the
+%university}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "At first the government staff had a bias that universities 
+%did
+%not deliver and we overcame that bias in the course of the project. We deliver 
+%a
+%lot and with quality. Today, I think that 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."
+%  \item \textit{Motivate teams}
+%    \subitem {81.1\%} of students think new versions released in production 
+%motivated
+%them during the project
+%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers think new versions released in 
+%production
+%motivated them during the project
+%    \subitem {81\%} of students think the presence of a specific DevOps team 
+%was
+%necessary for the project
+%  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries 
+%from
+%the academic team to the government infrastructure team}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "I only noticed positive aspects in the delivery. I think 
+%in the
+%interaction, we had a lot of support to be able to deploy. From the time that
+%the version was mature, which had already been tested in the UnB test
+%environment and was ready to be put into production, we had a great agility to
+%release in production. Then in the course of the project we realized that the
+%infrastructure team [of MPOG] started to trust the UnB team a lot. Because, for
+%you to put software in production in government, there is a whole process
+%behind. The government has much of this security issue."
+%    \subitem MPOG: "If there was anything stopping the business from working, 
+%the
+%software working inside, we would ask the seniors for support so we could
+%investigate that, and the infrastructure team was also instructed to prioritize
+%it. So when it came to an impasse, the teams were all together, both from 
+%within
+%MPOG as well as senior developers and other UnB developers to unlock, to find
+%the problem."
+%  \item \textit{Align the university and government teams pace in the 
+%execution of
+%the activities}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "In the beginning, infrastructure personnel were not 
+%accustomed
+%to deliveries so fast. They had to adapt to this pace. The portal of the SPB
+%before the project was not there [in the MPOG infrastructure], it was in 
+%another
+%place, they did not have that dynamics there. But what they asked for UnB (some
+%configuration, installation manual, how to install everything inside) was
+%requested and delivered."
+%  \item \textit{Improve translation from one development process to the other}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "We had an overview at the strategic level, but when we 
+%went down
+%to the level of functionality we had this difficulty to do the planning of the
+%release every four months. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem,
+%because 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, because the result is being delivered.
+%\end{itemize}
+%
+%\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
+%undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
+%
+%\begin{itemize}
+%  \item \textit{Four fronts: Colab, Noosfero, DevOps and Front-End/UX}
+%  \item \textit{Definition of the role of team coaches and meta-coach, 
+%selected from undergraduate students group}
+%  \item \textit{Hiring professionals from the IT market for face-to-face or 
+%remote work, specialists in the software components}
+%\end{itemize}
+%
+%\paragraph{Benefits}
+%
+%\begin{itemize}
+%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
+%  \item \textit{Help to conciliate development processes and decision-making}
+%    \subitem {62,5\%} of senior developers believe they have helped MPOG staff 
+%to more clearly express their requests
+%    \subitem {87,5\%} of seniors agreed with the project development process. 
+%For 37.5\% this process was little similar to their previous experiences, for 
+%the others there was a certain similarity.
+%    \subitem {62,5\%} of seniors did not understand MPOG's project management 
+%process. {50\%} of them believe their project productivity was affected by 
+%MPOG's project management process.
+%    \subitem Senior Dev: "I think my main contribution was to have balanced 
+%the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team"
+%    \subitem Senior Dev: "When I entered the project, the client had a 
+%disproportionate view of how to make explicit the requirements. They were still 
+%talking about use cases and were extremely concerned about validation processes 
+%and acceptance of these documents."
+%    \subitem MPOG: "You had the reviewers, who were the original developers of 
+%the software, that gave you confidence and confidence in the code."
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Create support and reference points for students, senior 
+%developers, and government staff}
+%    \subitem {89.1\%} of students believe that the presence of the leader was 
+%essential to the running of Sprint
+%    \subitem {87.5\%} of seniors believe that the presence of team leaders was 
+%essential for their interaction with the team
+%    \subitem MPOG: "It interacted more with the project coordinator and team 
+%coaches (noosfero, colab, visual identity). Interacted with coaches by mailing 
+%list, hangouts The reason was usually to elucidate requirements, to ask 
+%questions about requirements, to understand some functionality. "
+%    \subitem MPOG: "There was interaction with the other [non-coaches] because 
+%they also participated in the bi-weekly meetings (sprints), but it was more 
+%with coaches."
+%    \subitem MPOG: "Access to coaches was faster, because we were in much more 
+%interaction with leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches 
+%brought the question to the senior developers."
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to 
+%both academia and government}
+%    \subitem {62.5\%} of senior developers believe that they have collaborated 
+%in the relationship between the management and development processes of the two 
+%institutions
+%    \subitem {100\%} of the students we interviewed believe that working with 
+%senior developers was important during the project
+%    \subitem {91.\%} of students also believe that working with seniors was 
+%important for learning
+%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in pairs with a 
+%senior' and 62.5% who 'Participate in joint review tasks' were the tasks with 
+%the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution of students in 
+%the project.
+%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that in guiding a student, 
+%this knowledge was widespread among the other students on the team.
+%    \subitem MPOG: "On the side of UnB, what we perceived so strongly was that 
+%the project took a very big leap when the original developers of the software 
+%(the official software development) 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 "
+%\end{itemize}
 %
-  \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
-    \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was important during the project
-    \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like attending meetings with MPOG employees
-    \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's not just a name. "
+%%* 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)."
 %
-  \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
-    \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the project
-    \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important
-    \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
-    \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
-    \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
-    \subitem MPOG: "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, because we went there, where people were working and they show what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I found it very important and very positive it. "
+%\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the 
+%project together with development team}
+%\begin{itemize}
+%\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the 
+%development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior 
+%developers}
+%\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue 
+%Tracker}
+%\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the 
+%directors/secretaries}
+%\end{itemize}
 %
-  \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff}
-    \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
-    \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
-    \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the process."
+%\paragraph{Benefits}
 %
-  \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
-    \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem. That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
-\end{itemize}
+%\begin{itemize}
+%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
+%  \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did 
+%not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The 
+%[MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to 
+%another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue 
+%between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of 
+%coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started 
+%to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
+%    \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was 
+%important during the project
+%    \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like 
+%attending meetings with MPOG employees
+%    \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big 
+%difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through 
+%on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next 
+%time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even 
+%facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's 
+%not just a name. "
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
+%    \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG 
+%staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the 
+%project
+%    \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements 
+%together with the MPOG staff was very important
+%    \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very 
+%important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB 
+%tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
+%    \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really 
+%wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
+%    \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance 
+%and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
+%    \subitem MPOG: "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, because we went there, where people were working and they show 
+%what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had 
+%been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I 
+%found it very important and very positive it. "
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG 
+%staff}
+%    \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were 
+%very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they 
+%understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
+%    \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was 
+%developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a 
+%mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a 
+%partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into 
+%the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
+%    \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In 
+%addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities 
+%and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the 
+%team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was 
+%important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to 
+%present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the 
+%process."
+%%
+%  \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
+%    \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that 
+%interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give 
+%faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were 
+%waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended 
+%a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they 
+%also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem. 
+%That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
+%\end{itemize}