Merge Request #5

← To merge requests From leofl:master into softwarepublico:master
Closed
softwarepublico/articles!5
Created by Leonardo Leite

Revisão de "Open Questions" (revisão geral de texto #20)

Assignee: Melissa Wen
Milestone: None

Closed by Leonardo Leite

Changes were not merged into target branch

Commits (1)
2 participants
Showing 1 changed file   Show diff stats
opensym2017/content/04-researchdesign.tex
  Diff comments   Edit   View file @57b093f
1 1 \section{Open Questions}
2 2 \label{sec:researchdesign}
3 3  
4   -In this paper, we aim to share our experience designing and developing the new
5   -SPB Portal by reporting, alongside the technical efforts carried out, our
6   -empirical work process and the lessons learned. In the begins of the new SPB
7   -Portal project, we had in mind 3 main challenges to overcome, as explained in
8   -the following open questions.
  4 +In this paper, we share our experience in designing and developing the new
  5 +SPB Portal by reporting the technical efforts carried out, our
  6 +empirical work process, and the lessons learned. The new SPB Portal project
  7 +presented three main challenges, related to the open questions described below.
9 8  
10 9 \begin{description}
11 10  
12 11 \item [Q1:] \textit{Which strategy could be used to integrate several existing
13   -FLOSS tools to promote the collaborative software development?}
  12 +FLOSS tools to promote a collaborative software development?}
14 13 %
15 14 Based on an extensive list of functional requirements defined by the Brazilian
16   -Federal Government, we selected some FLOSS systems to form our solution,
17   -generating a non-trivial integration among them. We looked for system that
18   -together could provide the largest subset possible of the requirements, and
  15 +Federal Government, we selected some FLOSS systems to compose our solution,
  16 +engineering a nontrivial integration among them. We looked for the systems set
  17 +realizing the largest possible subset of the requirements list. However, we
19 18 were fully aware that we would need to improve those systems in order to
20   -provide the rest. We were also convinced that it would be impossible to provide
  19 +satisfy the remaining requirements. We were also convinced that it would be impossible to satisfy
21 20 all of those requirements with a single tool.
22 21  
23 22 \item [Q2:] \textit{How to involve students in real-world projects interacting with
24 23 real customers?}
25 24 %
26 25 Our team was mainly composed of software engineering undergraduate
27   -students, who had the opportunity to interact with senior developers and
28   -designers on the team, as well as with the team of technicians and
29   -managers from the Brazilian Government, and the management team from
30   -UnB. For the majority of the students, this was a first professional experience. We have define an approach to involve the undergraduate students in this project with a central role in our development process.
  26 +students, who had the opportunity to interact with the UnB managers,
  27 +senior developers, designers, and even with technicians and
  28 +managers from the Brazilian Government.
  29 +For the majority of the students, this was a first professional experience.
  30 +Even though, our development process defined a central role on students participation.
31 31  
32   -\item [Q3:] \textit{How to introduce the FLOSS collaborative and agile
33   -practices to governmental development process?}
  32 +\item [Q3:] \textit{How to introduce collaborative and agile
  33 +practices typical in FLOSS environments in the governmental development process?}
34 34 %
35   -The Brazilian government works based on a very traditional way regarding
36   -software developing, frequently focusing on documents. We have need to convince
37   -them to accept the idea of open scope and empirical development. They have
38   -certain expectations about the development of project according to RUP
  35 +The software development on Brazilian government is based on a very traditional way,
  36 +frequently focusing documentation deliveries. We had to convince
  37 +them to accept the idea of open scope and empirical development. They had
  38 +certain expectations about the project development according to RUP
39 39 (Rational Unified Process) and PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge)
40   -approaches, what not match our work based on agile and FLOSS practices. We have
41   -created strategies that would support different these organizational cultures.
  40 +approaches, which mismatched our work style based on agile and FLOSS practices. So we
  41 +created strategies to conciliate these different organizational cultures within the project.
42 42  
43 43 \end{description}
... ...