The social structure of free and open source software development

By Kevin Crowston, James Linton Howison. First Monday, 2005

570 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Metaphors, such as the Cathedral and Bazaar, used to describe the organization of FLOSS projects typically place them in sharp contrast to proprietary development by emphasizing FLOSS’s distinctive social and communications structures. But what do we really know about the communication patterns of FLOSS projects? How generalizable are the projects that have been studied? Is there consistency across FLOSS projects? Questioning the assumption of distinctiveness is important because practitioner–advocates from within the FLOSS community rely on features of social structure to describe and account for some of the advantages of FLOSS production. To address this question, we examined 120 project teams from SourceForge, representing a wide range of FLOSS project types, for their communications centralization as revealed in the interactions in the bug tracking system. We found that FLOSS development teams vary widely in their communications centralization, from projects completely centered on one developer to projects that are highly decentralized and exhibit a distributed pattern of conversation between developers and active users. We suggest, therefore, that it is wrong to assume that FLOSS projects are distinguished by a particular social structure merely because they are FLOSS. Our findings suggest that FLOSS projects might have to work hard to achieve the expected development advantages which have been assumed to flow from "going open." In addition, the variation in communications structure across projects means that communications centralization is useful for comparisons between FLOSS teams. We found that larger FLOSS teams tend to have more decentralized communication patterns, a finding that suggests interesting avenues for further research examining, for example, the relationship between communications structure and code modularity.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bae5575284776cabed101750ac41848c700af431

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Emergence of New Project Teams from Open Source Software Developer Networks: Impact of Prior Collaboration Ties (2008, background): “periphery structure ( Crowston and Howison 2005 ).”
Latent social structure in open source projects (2008, background): “Crowston and Howison [17] use co-occurrence of developers on bug reports as indicators of a social link.”
Mining email social networks (2006, background): “Crowston & Howison [7] use co-occurrence of developrs on bug reports as indicators of a social link.”
Bots, bespoke, code and the materiality of software platforms (2014, background): “…a novel one, but it is distinct from the even more accepted notions that it is important to study software development as a socio-cultural practice (Crowston & Howison, 2005; Mockus, Fielding, & Herbsleb, 2002) or to study the economic, political, social, cultural, psychological, and…”
Expertise identification and visualization from CVS (2008, background): “There are several ways of identifying expertise in a particular domain given different information sources.”