Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Sources of Underproduction in Open Source Software

Published 20 Jan 2024 in cs.SE, cs.CY, and cs.HC | (2401.11281v1)

Abstract: Because open source software relies on individuals who select their own tasks, it is often underproduced -- a term used by software engineering researchers to describe when a piece of software's relative quality is lower than its relative importance. We examine the social and technical factors associated with underproduction through a comparison of software packaged by the Debian GNU/Linux community. We test a series of hypotheses developed from a reading of prior research in software engineering. Although we find that software age and programming language age offer a partial explanation for variation in underproduction, we were surprised to find that the association between underproduction and package age is weaker at high levels of programming language age. With respect to maintenance efforts, we find that additional resources are not always tied to better outcomes. In particular, having higher numbers of contributors is associated with higher underproduction risk. Also, contrary to our expectations, maintainer turnover and maintenance by a declared team are not associated with lower rates of underproduction. Finally, we find that the people working on bugs in underproduced packages tend to be those who are more central to the community's collaboration network structure, although contributors' betweenness centrality (often associated with brokerage in social networks) is not associated with underproduction.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. Y. Benkler, “Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and ”The Nature of the Firm”,” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 112, no. 3, p. 369, Dec. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1562247?origin=crossref
  2. K. Champion and B. M. Hill, “Underproduction: An Approach for Measuring Risk in Open Source Software,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER).   Honolulu, HI, USA: IEEE, Mar. 2021, pp. 388–399. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9426043/
  3. C. Hannebauer and V. Gruhn, “Motivation of Newcomers to FLOSS Projects.”   ACM Press, 2016, pp. 1–10. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2957792.2957793
  4. K. Lakhani and R. G. Wolf, “Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 443040, Sep. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=443040
  5. J. Christian and A. N. Vu, “Task‐based structures in open source software: revisiting the onion model,” R&D Management, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 87–100, Jan. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12428
  6. K. Crowston and J. Howison, “Hierarchy and centralization in free and open source software team communications,” Knowledge, Technology & Policy, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 65–85, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12130-006-1004-8
  7. A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb, “Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 309–346, Jul. 2002. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/567793.567795
  8. C. Miller, S. Cohen, D. Klug, B. Vasilescu, and C. Kastner, “”Did you miss my comment or what?”: Understanding toxicity in open source discussions,” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering.   Pittsburgh Pennsylvania: ACM, May 2022, pp. 710–722. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3510003.3510111
  9. C. Miller, D. G. Widder, C. Kastner, and B. Vasilescu, “Why do people give up FLOSSing? A study of contributor disengagement in open source,” in Open Source Systems, ser. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, F. Bordeleau, A. Sillitti, P. Meirelles, and V. Lenarduzzi, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 116–129.
  10. X. Tan and M. Zhou, “Scaling open source software communities: Challenges and practices of decentralization,” IEEE Software, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 70–75, Jan. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9203865/
  11. M. Germonprez, J. Lipps, and S. Goggins, “The rising tide: Open source’s steady transformation,” First Monday, vol. 24, no. 8, Aug. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9297
  12. Z. Durumeric, F. Li, J. Kasten, J. Amann, J. Beekman, M. Payer, N. Weaver, D. Adrian, V. Paxson, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman, “The matter of Heartbleed,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference.   Vancouver BC Canada: ACM, Nov. 2014, pp. 475–488. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2663716.2663755
  13. S. M. Kerner, “Heartbleed SSL flaw’s true cost will take time to tally,” eWEEK, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.eweek.com/security/heartbleed-ssl-flaw-s-true-cost-will-take-time-to-tally/
  14. J. Walden, “The impact of a major security event on an open source project: The case of OpenSSL,” in 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, May 2020.
  15. N. Eghbal, “Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure,” Jul. 2016.
  16. N. Perlroth, “Heartbleed highlights a contradiction in the web,” The New York Times, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/technology/heartbleed-highlights-a-contradiction-in-the-web.html
  17. J. Pagliery, “Your Internet security relies on a handful of volunteers,” CNNMoney, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://money.cnn.com/2014/04/18/technology/security/heartbleed-volunteers/
  18. D. A. Wheeler, “Preventing Heartbleed,” Computer, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 80–83, Aug. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6879758/
  19. ——, “How to prevent the next Heartbleed,” May 2014. [Online]. Available: https://dwheeler.com/essays/heartbleed.html
  20. M. Carvalho, J. DeMott, R. Ford, and D. A. Wheeler, “Heartbleed 101,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 63–67, Jul. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6876249/
  21. I. Paul, “In Heartbleed’s wake, tech titans launch fund for crucial open-source projects,” PCWorld, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.pcworld.com/article/438906
  22. M. Valiev, B. Vasilescu, and J. Herbsleb, “Ecosystem-level determinants of sustained activity in open-source projects: A case study of the PyPI ecosystem,” in Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering.   Lake Buena Vista FL USA: ACM, Oct. 2018, pp. 644–655. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3236024.3236062
  23. M. Joblin and S. Apel, “How do successful and failed projects differ? A socio-technical analysis,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1–24, Oct. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3504003
  24. A. Mockus, “Organizational volatility and its effects on software defects,” in Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering.   Santa Fe New Mexico USA: ACM, Nov. 2010, pp. 117–126. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1882291.1882311
  25. J. Coelho and M. T. Valente, “Why modern open source projects fail,” in Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering.   Paderborn Germany: ACM, Aug. 2017, pp. 186–196. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3106237.3106246
  26. M. Foucault, M. Palyart, X. Blanc, G. C. Murphy, and J.-R. Falleri, “Impact of developer turnover on quality in open-source software,” in Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering.   Bergamo Italy: ACM, Aug. 2015, pp. 829–841. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2786805.2786870
  27. M. Michlmayr and B. M. Hill, “Quality and the reliance on individuals in free software projects,” 3rd Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, ICSE, 2003.
  28. G. Robles, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, and M. Michlmayr, “Evolution of volunteer participation in libre software projects,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Open Source Systems, 2005.
  29. M. Nassif and M. P. Robillard, “Revisiting turnover-induced knowledge loss in software projects,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).   Shanghai: IEEE, Sep. 2017, pp. 261–272. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8094427/
  30. K. Crowston, Kangning Wei, Qing Li, and J. Howison, “Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications,” in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06).   Kauia, HI, USA: IEEE, 2006, pp. 118a–118a. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1579526/
  31. M. Studer, “Community structure, individual participation and the social construction of merit,” in Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation, ser. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, W. Scacchi, and A. Sillitti, Eds.   Springer US, Jan. 2007, no. 234, pp. 161–172. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-72486-7_13
  32. C. Bird, D. Pattison, R. D’Souza, V. Filkov, and P. Devanbu, “Latent social structure in open source projects,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. SIGSOFT ’08/FSE-16.   New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2008, pp. 24–35. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1453101.1453107
  33. H. S. Qiu, A. Nolte, A. Brown, A. Serebrenik, and B. Vasilescu, “Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).   Montreal, QC, Canada: IEEE, May 2019, pp. 688–699. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8812044/
  34. B. M. Sadowski, G. Sadowski-Rasters, and G. Duysters, “Transition of governance in a mature open software source community: Evidence from the Debian case,” Information Economics and Policy, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 323–332, Dec. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167624508000310
  35. J. Mateos-Garcia and W. E. Steinmueller, “The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community,” Information Economics and Policy, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 333–344, Dec. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167624508000346
  36. M. Caneill, D. M. Germán, and S. Zacchiroli, “The Debsources Dataset: Two decades of free and open source software,” Aug. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://zenodo.org/record/61089
  37. L. Nussbaum and S. Zacchiroli, “The Ultimate Debian Database: Consolidating bazaar metadata for quality assurance and data mining,” in 2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010).   Cape Town, South Africa: IEEE, May 2010, pp. 52–61. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5463277/
  38. G. Csardi and T. Nepusz, “The igraph software package for complex network research,” InterJournal, vol. Complex Systems, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://igraph.org

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.