A Methodological Framework for Socio-Cognitive Analyses of Collaborative Design of Open Source Software

Open Source Software (OSS) development challenges traditional software engineering practices. In particular, OSS projects are managed by a large number of volunteers, working freely on the tasks they choose to undertake. OSS projects also rarely rely on explicit system-level design, or on project plans or schedules. Moreover, OSS developers work in arbitrary locations and collaborate almost exclusively over the Internet, using simple tools such as email and software code tracking databases (e.g. CVS).All the characteristics above make OSS development akin to weaving a tapestry of heterogeneous components. The OSS design process relies on various types of actors: people with prescribed roles, but also elements coming from a variety of information spaces (such as email and software code). The objective of our research is to understand the specific hybrid weaving accomplished by the actors of this distributed, collective design process. This, in turn, challenges traditional methodologies used to understand distributed software engineering: OSS development is simply too “fibrous” to lend itself well to analysis under a single methodological lens.In this paper, we describe the methodological framework we articulated to analyze collaborative design in the Open Source world. Our framework focuses on the links between the heterogeneous components of a project’s hybrid network. We combine ethnography, text mining, and socio-technical network analysis and visualization to understand OSS development in its totality. This way, we are able to simultaneously consider the social, technical, and cognitive aspects of OSS development. We describe our methodology in detail, and discuss its implications for future research on distributed collective practices.

[1]  Carman Neustaedter,et al.  Understanding sequence and reply relationships within email conversations: a mixed-model visualization , 2003, CHI '03.

[2]  J. Herbsleb,et al.  Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla , 2002, TSEM.

[3]  Gabriel Ripoche,et al.  Experiences in Automating the Analysis of Linguistic Interactions for the Study of Distributed Collectives , 2006, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[4]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Object-oriented analysis and design in software project teams , 1995 .

[6]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Understanding Continuous Design in F/OSS Projects , 2003 .

[7]  Warren Sack,et al.  Conversation Map: An Interface for Very Large-Scale Conversations , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Eric Monteiro,et al.  Open source processes: no place for politics? , 2003 .

[9]  Alberto Cambrosio,et al.  A New Clinical Collective for French Cancer Genetics , 2006 .

[10]  V. Turner The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure , 1971 .

[11]  Gregory R. Madey,et al.  Modeling the Free/Open Source Software Community: A Quantitative Investigation , 2008 .

[12]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Viewpoints in co-design: a field study in concurrent engineering , 2005, ArXiv.

[13]  S. L. Star,et al.  Ecologies of knowledge : work and politics in science and technology , 1996 .

[14]  B. Latour,et al.  The Hume machine: can association networks do more than formal rules , 1995 .

[15]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Socio-Technical Interaction Networks in Free/Open Source Software Development Processes , 2005 .

[16]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The cathedral and the bazaar - musings on Linux and Open Source by an accidental revolutionary , 2001 .

[17]  Warren Sack,et al.  The reproduction of open source software programming communities , 2003 .

[18]  Jenny Preece,et al.  Silent Participants: Getting to Know Lurkers Better , 2003, From Usenet to CoWebs.

[19]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  Les Gasser,et al.  Negotiation and the coordination of information and activity in distributed software problem management , 2005, GROUP.

[21]  D HerbslebJames,et al.  Two case studies of open source software development , 2002 .

[22]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Cognitive Effort in Collective Software Design: Methodological Perspectives in Cognitive Ergonomics , 2006, ArXiv.

[23]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Characterization of Collaborative Design and Interaction Management Activities in a Distant Engineering Design Situation , 1992 .

[24]  V. Turner,et al.  The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure , 1978 .

[25]  Sandeep Krishnamurthy,et al.  Cave or Community? An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects , 2002, First Monday.

[26]  Gabriella Coleman High‐Tech Guilds in the Era of Global Capital , 2001 .

[27]  Budi Arief,et al.  focus developing with open source software The Many Meanings of Open Source , 2022 .

[28]  Nicolas Ducheneaut,et al.  Socialization in an Open Source Software Community: A Socio-Technical Analysis , 2005, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[29]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication , 2002 .

[30]  Ilkka Tuomi,et al.  Internet, Innovation, and Open Source: Actors in the Network , 2001, First Monday.

[31]  Thomas Østerlie,et al.  In the network: Distributed control in Gentoo/Linux , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[32]  Rishab Aiyer Ghosh,et al.  The Orbiten Free Software Survey , 2000, First Monday.

[33]  M. Callon Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[34]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[35]  Karim R. Lakhani,et al.  Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study , 2003 .

[36]  Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona Community structure of modules in the Apache project , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[37]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[38]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[39]  Martyn Wild,et al.  From Usenet to CoWebs - Interacting with social information spaces , 2003, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[40]  Richard C. Holt,et al.  Software architecture recovery using Conway's law , 1998, CASCON.

[41]  Audris Mockus,et al.  An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development , 2003, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[42]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Object-Oriented Analysis and Design in Software Project Teams , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[43]  Kerstin Severinson Eklundh,et al.  Coherence and interactivity in text-based group discussions around Web documents , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[44]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Architectures, coordination, and distance: Conway’s law and beyond , 1999 .

[45]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: a study of software technical review meetings , 2004, ArXiv.

[46]  Susan C. Herring Interactional Coherence in CMC , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[47]  Michael Callaghan,et al.  Conversation space: visualising multi-threaded conversation , 2000, AVI '00.

[48]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  A study of online discussions in an Open-Source Software Community: Reconstructing thematic coherence and argumentation from quotation practices , 2005 .