Design, discussion, and dissent in open bug reports

While studies have considered computer-mediated decision-making in several domains, few have considered the unique challenges posed in software design. To address this gap, a qualitative study of 100 contentious open source bug reports was performed. The results suggest that the immeasurability of many software qualities and conflicts between achieving original design intent and serving changing user needs led to a high reliance on anecdote, speculation, and generalization. The visual presentation of threaded discussions aggravated these problems making it difficult to view design proposals and comparative critiques. The results raise several new questions about the interaction between authority and evidence in online design discussions.

[1]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Asynchronous Decision Making in Distributed Teams , 2008, CSCW 2008.

[2]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Argument and Decision Making in Computer‐Mediated Groups , 2004 .

[3]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma , 1997 .

[5]  Ivan Beschastnikh,et al.  Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation , 2007, GROUP.

[6]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Shared Mental Models, Familiarity, and Coordination: A Multi-Method Study of Distributed Software Teams , 2002, ICIS.

[7]  Gina Venolia,et al.  The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories , 2009, 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering.

[8]  Amy J. Ko,et al.  How power users help and hinder open bug reporting , 2010, CHI.

[9]  D. Kuhn.  THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[10]  Mike Chiasson,et al.  A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .

[12]  David M. Nichols,et al.  Exploring Usability Discussions in Open Source Development , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[13]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[14]  Robert DeLine,et al.  Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07).

[15]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument structures in decision‐making groups , 1987 .

[16]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Group awareness in distributed software development , 2004, CSCW.

[17]  Erin Friess,et al.  Defending design decisions with usability evidence: a case study , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[18]  Alan Cooper,et al.  About Face 3: the essentials of interaction design , 1995 .

[19]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[20]  W. Wulf,et al.  Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2008 .

[21]  Helena M. Mentis,et al.  Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making , 2009, CHI.

[22]  Thomas Zimmermann,et al.  What Makes a Good Bug Report? , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[23]  Shelly Farnham,et al.  Structured online interactions: improving the decision-making of small discussion groups , 2000, CSCW '00.

[24]  B. Glaser.  Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing , 1992 .

[25]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[26]  Paula M. Bach.  Design Information Sharing Across Multiple Knowledge Systems in a FLOSS Community , 2009 .

[27]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Psychological aspects of natural language. use: our words, our selves. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.