Hierarchy and centralization in free and open source software team communications

Knowledge, Technology & Policy 18 (4):65-85 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) development teams provide an interesting and convenient setting for studying distributed work. We begin by answering perhaps the most basic question: what is the social structure of these teams? We conducted social network analyses of bug-fixing interactions from three repositories: Sourceforge, GNU Savannah and Apache Bugzilla. We find that some OSS teams are highly centralized, but contrary to expectation, others are not. Projects are mostly quite hierarchical on four measures of hierarchy, consistent with past research but contrary to the naive image of these projects. Furthermore, we find that the level of centralization is negatively correlated with project size, suggesting that larger projects become more modular, or possibly that becoming more modular is a key to growth. The paper makes a further methodological contribution by identifying appropriate analysis approaches for interaction data. We conclude by sketching directions for future research.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,590

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethical issues in open source software.F. S. Grodzinsky, K. Miller & M. J. Wolf - 2003 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 1 (4):193-205.
On the meaning of free software.M. J. Wolf, K. W. Miller & F. S. Grodzinsky - 2009 - Ethics and Information Technology 11 (4):279-286.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-21

Downloads
28 (#138,667)

6 months
8 (#1,326,708)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The cathedral and the bazaar.Eric Raymond - 1999 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 12 (3):23-49.

Add more references