Managing the Boundary of an 'Open' Project

In the past ten years, the boundaries between public and open science and commercial research efforts have become more porous. Scholars have thus more critically examined ways in which these two institutional regimes intersect. Large open source software projects have also attracted commercial collaborators and now struggle to develop code in an open public environment that still protects their communal boundaries. This research applies a dynamic social network approach to understand how one community-managed software project, Debian, developed a membership process. We examine the project's face-to-face social network over a five-year period (1997-2001) to see how changes in the social structure affected the evolution of membership mechanisms and the determination of gatekeepers. While the amount and importance of a contributor's work increased the probability that a contributor would become a gatekeeper, those more central in the social network were more likely to become gatekeepers and influence the membership process. A greater understanding of the mechanisms open projects use to manage their boundaries has critical implications for research and knowledge-producing communities operating in pluralistic, open and distributed environments.

[1]  R. Kanter COMMITMENT AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION: A STUDY OF COMMITMENT MECHANISMS IN UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES * , 1968 .

[2]  J. Ravetz Sociology of Science , 1972, Nature.

[3]  L. Freeman Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[4]  Joyce Rothschild-Whitt,et al.  The Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to Rational-Bureaucratic Models , 1979 .

[5]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts , 1983 .

[6]  Richard Russell,et al.  Alternatives to Bureaucracy: Democratic Participation In The Economy , 1986 .

[7]  R. Jackson,et al.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1988, International journal of dermatology.

[8]  Joyce Rothschild,et al.  The Cooperative Workplace: Potentials and Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy and Participation. , 1988 .

[9]  W. Whyte,et al.  Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex. , 1989 .

[10]  Satoru Kawai,et al.  An Algorithm for Drawing General Undirected Graphs , 1989, Inf. Process. Lett..

[11]  Joyce Rothschild,et al.  The cooperative workplace : potentials and dilemmas of organizational democracy and participation , 1990 .

[12]  S. Scotchmer,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law , 1991 .

[13]  R. Eccles,et al.  Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action , 1992 .

[14]  Nitin Nohria,et al.  Face-to-Face: Making Network Organizations Work , 1992 .

[15]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[16]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , 1994 .

[17]  S. Scotchmer,et al.  Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable? , 1996 .

[18]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[19]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation , 1998 .

[20]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[21]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences , 1998 .

[22]  J. A. Calvin Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1998 .

[23]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

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

[25]  Reka Albert,et al.  Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks , 1999 .

[26]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[27]  Eric Lease Morgan,et al.  Review of The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary by Eric S. Raymond, Sebastopol, Calif.: O'Reilly, 1999 , 2000 .

[28]  Audris Mockus,et al.  A case study of open source software development: the Apache server , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[29]  Stefan Koch,et al.  Results from software engineering research into open source development projects using public data , 2000 .

[30]  Peter C. Wayner Free for All: How Linux and the Free Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans , 2000 .

[31]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a content analysis of open source software case studies , 2001, Inf. Syst. J..

[32]  Teresa R. Behrens,et al.  Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome , 2001 .

[33]  B. Kogut,et al.  Open-source Software Development and Distributed Innovation , 2001 .

[34]  Richard Mollin An introduction to cryptography , 2001, CRC Press series on discrete mathematics and its applications.

[35]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation , 2001 .

[36]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[37]  Ilkka Tuomi,et al.  Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet , 2002 .

[38]  Benjamin Coriat,et al.  Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content and problems , 2002 .

[39]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States , 2002 .

[40]  Stephen R. Barley,et al.  The emergence of a new commercial actor: community managed software projects , 2002 .

[41]  Lawrence Lessig,et al.  The future of ideas - the fate of the commons in a connected world , 2002 .

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

[43]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities , 2003 .

[44]  W. Powell,et al.  The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity , 2003 .

[45]  T. Data,et al.  The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information: A Primer , 2003 .

[46]  Tomas Hellström,et al.  Governing the virtual academic commons , 2003 .

[47]  Siobhan O’Mahony Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work , 2003 .

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

[49]  P. David,et al.  Economic Fundamentals of the Knowledge Society , 2003 .

[50]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[51]  James Bessen,et al.  medium provided this notice is preserved. AN EMPIRICAL LOOK AT SOFTWARE PATENTS , 2004 .

[52]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[53]  Paul A. David,et al.  The Digital Technology Boomerang: New Intellectual Property Rights Threaten Global “Open Science” , 2005 .

[54]  Jean-Michel Dalle,et al.  The Allocation of Software Development Resources In ‘Open Source’ Production Mode , 2005 .

[55]  Martin Michlmayr Quality and the Reliance on Individuals in Free Software Projects , 2011 .