Advertisement

Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 139–150 | Cite as

The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?

Original Paper

Abstract

The concept of ‘open source’ software initially referred to software projects managed by grassroots communities in public forums. Since 1998, the concept has been adapted and diffused to new settings that extend beyond software. While the open source community has maintained control over which software licenses can be considered ‘open source’, little attention has been paid to the elements that constitute community management. More private parties now contribute to OSS communities and more hybrid governance models have emerged. Before we can understand how hybrid models differ from a community managed model, a more precise definition is needed. This essay takes a step in this direction by identifying five core principles critical to community-managed governance.

Keywords

Community management Governance Open source software Software development 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Joel West, Sonali Shah, Mitch Kapor, Mitchell Baker, Brian Behlendorf, James Howison, and Kevin Crowston for their comments on this paper and these ideas. Thanks also to the reviewers and editors for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
  4. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.) (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, J. S. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Dalle, J. M., & Jullien, N. (2003). ‘Libre’ software: Turning fads into institutions? Research Policy, 32, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900–901.Google Scholar
  8. Gladwell, M. (2005). The bake-off. The New Yorker, September 25. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html.
  9. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, P. M. (1960). Weber’s categories of authority and voluntary associations. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hars, A., & Ou, S. (2002). Working for free?—Motivations of participating in open source projects. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 25–39.Google Scholar
  12. Heckman, R., Crowston, K., Li, Q., Allen, E., Eseryel, U. Y., Howison, J., & Wei, K. (2006). Emergent decision-making practices in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2006), Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  13. Hertel, B., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32(7), 1159–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howison, J. (2007). Effective organization for uncertain collaborations: Lessons from free (libre) and open source software development teams. Presentation at the 2nd conference on the Institutional Foundations of Industry Self Regulation, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved March 2007, from http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/conferences/docs/Howison_poster.pdf.Google Scholar
  15. Lakhani, K. (2006). Broadcast search in scientific and technical problem solving: Finding solutions from the periphery. MIT Sloan Working Paper. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.stern.nyu.edu/ciio/WorkOnline/IS20052006/021506.pdf.Google Scholar
  16. Lakhani, K., & McAfee, A. (2007). Wikipedia (A). Harvard Business School Case 9607712. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  17. Lakhani, K., & Wolf, B. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In H. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lynn, L. E. Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Why? How? In C. J. Heinrich, & L. E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 1–33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: How community managed projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32, 1179–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Mahony, S. (2005). Non-profit foundations and their role in community-firm software collaboration. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, & K. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 393–413). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. O’Mahony, S., & Raj, N. (2006). Mozilla: The rebirth of Firefox. Harvard Business School Case 907015, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  23. O’Mahony, S., & West, J. (2006). The participation architecture of online production communities. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  25. Shah, S. (2005). Open beyond software. In C. DiBona, D. Cooper, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open sources 2.0: The continuing evolution (pp. 339–360). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  26. Shah, S. (2006). Motivation, governance & the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7), 1000–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris, & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers of social movement theory (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B. Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micro-mobilization, and movement. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003). Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy, 32, 1217–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of ManagementUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations