[i3eSW] Adjust format

Melissa Wen
1 parent 2845ae0b
Showing 1 changed file with 11 additions and 9 deletions Show diff stats
ieeeSW/releaseEng3/IEEE_ThemeIssue_ReleaseEng_CD.md
@@ -284,13 +284,15 @@ activities of the whole team. Our team did not have know-how in this approach
 and we had few working hours available to allocate to building a pipeline. The
 construction and maintenance of the CD process was possible by taking some
 decisions to mature the project:
-(i) Selecting the most experienced professionals and a few developers of the
-project to work on a small DevOps team. These professionals used their
+
+1. _Selecting the most experienced professionals and a few developers of the
+project to work on a small DevOps team._ These professionals used their
 experiences in FLOSS projects to get an initial proposal of deployment process.
 The solution enabled us to automate the deployment, even though the process was
 still rudimentary.
-(ii) Interchanging team members and encouraging teammates to migrate to DevOps
-team. The benefits of these movements were twofold: mitigating the difficulty
+
+2. _Interchanging team members and encouraging teammates to migrate to DevOps
+team._ The benefits of these movements were twofold: mitigating the difficulty
 to pass the knowledge from developers who had already understood the CD to the
 others who were dedicated to the development of features of the platform, and
 evolving the process on-the-fly.
@@ -306,11 +308,11 @@ in a high turnover scenario.
  
 Taking an unfamiliar approach requires trust. In the Ministry of Planning, 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. In addition, long time for homologation of developed features gave 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?
  
-\begin{enumerate}
-  \item \textit{Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell.} Since we did not have access to government infrastructure, we decided to create our own validation environment. We advance on CD pipeline to the release validation stage when we were faced two problems: the volume of intermediate deliveries was greater than the ability of government technicians to deploy in production, and features validated by government analysts in our environment did not work as expected in production (due to specific issues of government infrastructure we had neither access nor control). We reinforced to them that we needed to have access to a real environment.}
-\item \textit{Make our project management transparent and collaborative for analysts.} Allowing the analysts to follow our dynamics of version generation, bug fixes and requirements adjustments, we showed them we were meeting our commitments. They started to interact more strongly in the generation of a version and also wanted to see the result of their validation works in production. With this, after some interactions with government agents, they created a VE as an isolated replica of PE and gave us access.
-\item \textit{Gain the confidence of government agents.} In the created environment, we showed the development of the entire pipeline and won the trust of the government agents involved in the process. On the one hand, analysts saw the mobilization and responsiviness of the team to generate a new version package. On the other hand, government technicians recognized the quality of our packages and our deployment process.
-\end{enumerate}
+1. _Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell._ Since we did not have access to government infrastructure, we decided to create our own validation environment. We advance on CD pipeline to the release validation stage when we were faced two problems: the volume of intermediate deliveries was greater than the ability of government technicians to deploy in production, and features validated by government analysts in our environment did not work as expected in production (due to specific issues of government infrastructure we had neither access nor control). We reinforced to them that we needed to have access to a real environment.
+
+2. _Make our project management transparent and collaborative for analysts._ Allowing the analysts to follow our dynamics of version generation, bug fixes and requirements adjustments, we showed them we were meeting our commitments. They started to interact more strongly in the generation of a version and also wanted to see the result of their validation works in production. With this, after some interactions with government agents, they created a VE as an isolated replica of PE and gave us access.
+
+3. _Gain the confidence of government agents._ In the created environment, we showed the development of the entire pipeline and won the trust of the government agents involved in the process. On the one hand, analysts saw the mobilization and responsiviness of the team to generate a new version package. On the other hand, government technicians recognized the quality of our packages and our deployment process.
  
 Finally, the government agents then realised that it could be beneficial for the project if they granted us access to part of the infrastructure. More research is required on development protocols and policies to improve the relation between industry and government, specially regarding CD.
...	...	@@ -284,13 +284,15 @@ activities of the whole team. Our team did not have know-how in this approach
284	284	and we had few working hours available to allocate to building a pipeline. The
285	285	construction and maintenance of the CD process was possible by taking some
286	286	decisions to mature the project:
287		-(i) Selecting the most experienced professionals and a few developers of the
288		-project to work on a small DevOps team. These professionals used their
	287	+
	288	+1. _Selecting the most experienced professionals and a few developers of the
	289	+project to work on a small DevOps team._ These professionals used their
289	290	experiences in FLOSS projects to get an initial proposal of deployment process.
290	291	The solution enabled us to automate the deployment, even though the process was
291	292	still rudimentary.
292		-(ii) Interchanging team members and encouraging teammates to migrate to DevOps
293		-team. The benefits of these movements were twofold: mitigating the difficulty
	293	+
	294	+2. _Interchanging team members and encouraging teammates to migrate to DevOps
	295	+team._ The benefits of these movements were twofold: mitigating the difficulty
294	296	to pass the knowledge from developers who had already understood the CD to the
295	297	others who were dedicated to the development of features of the platform, and
296	298	evolving the process on-the-fly.
...	...	@@ -306,11 +308,11 @@ in a high turnover scenario.
306	308
307	309	Taking an unfamiliar approach requires trust. In the Ministry of Planning, 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. In addition, long time for homologation of developed features gave 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?
308	310
309		-\begin{enumerate}
310		- \item \textit{Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell.} Since we did not have access to government infrastructure, we decided to create our own validation environment. We advance on CD pipeline to the release validation stage when we were faced two problems: the volume of intermediate deliveries was greater than the ability of government technicians to deploy in production, and features validated by government analysts in our environment did not work as expected in production (due to specific issues of government infrastructure we had neither access nor control). We reinforced to them that we needed to have access to a real environment.}
311		-\item \textit{Make our project management transparent and collaborative for analysts.} Allowing the analysts to follow our dynamics of version generation, bug fixes and requirements adjustments, we showed them we were meeting our commitments. They started to interact more strongly in the generation of a version and also wanted to see the result of their validation works in production. With this, after some interactions with government agents, they created a VE as an isolated replica of PE and gave us access.
312		-\item \textit{Gain the confidence of government agents.} In the created environment, we showed the development of the entire pipeline and won the trust of the government agents involved in the process. On the one hand, analysts saw the mobilization and responsiviness of the team to generate a new version package. On the other hand, government technicians recognized the quality of our packages and our deployment process.
313		-\end{enumerate}
	311	+1. _Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell._ Since we did not have access to government infrastructure, we decided to create our own validation environment. We advance on CD pipeline to the release validation stage when we were faced two problems: the volume of intermediate deliveries was greater than the ability of government technicians to deploy in production, and features validated by government analysts in our environment did not work as expected in production (due to specific issues of government infrastructure we had neither access nor control). We reinforced to them that we needed to have access to a real environment.
	312	+
	313	+2. _Make our project management transparent and collaborative for analysts._ Allowing the analysts to follow our dynamics of version generation, bug fixes and requirements adjustments, we showed them we were meeting our commitments. They started to interact more strongly in the generation of a version and also wanted to see the result of their validation works in production. With this, after some interactions with government agents, they created a VE as an isolated replica of PE and gave us access.
	314	+
	315	+3. _Gain the confidence of government agents._ In the created environment, we showed the development of the entire pipeline and won the trust of the government agents involved in the process. On the one hand, analysts saw the mobilization and responsiviness of the team to generate a new version package. On the other hand, government technicians recognized the quality of our packages and our deployment process.
314	316
315	317	Finally, the government agents then realised that it could be beneficial for the project if they granted us access to part of the infrastructure. More research is required on development protocols and policies to improve the relation between industry and government, specially regarding CD.
316	318
...	...