Sprint-driven development: working, learning and the process of enculturation in the PyPy community

  • Anders Sigfridsson
  • Gabriela Avram
  • Anne Sheehan
  • Daniel K. Sullivan
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 234)


In this paper we examine sprint-driven software development as it occurs in a specific Open Source community, PyPy. Applying a situated learning perspective, we report the findings from a study focused on the activities leading up to, taking place during, and following after sprints. The study included analyses of sprint reports, email archives and other documents available on the community website, as well as a one-week period of direct observation of a specific sprint. The objective of the study was to elaborate on how the practices of sprint-driven development in the PyPy community facilitate learning, the dissemination of knowledge among its members and the expansion of the Open Source community. This paper aims to assess how sprint-driven development can facilitate situated learning in distributed software development by describing the practices applied in PyPy.


Distributed software development Open Source communities sprints situated learning 

8 References

  1. 1.
    Blomberg J. et al. (1993) Ethnographic field methods and the relation to design. In D. Schuler and A. Namioka, (Eds.) Participatory Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 123–155.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bos N., N. S. Shami, et al. (2004). In groups/Out Group Effect in Distributed Teams: An Experimental Simulation. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp. 429–436.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown J. S. & Duguid P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honour of (and by) James G. March (1991), pp. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmel E. & P. Tjia (2005) Offshoring Information Technology: Sourcing and Outsourcing to a Global Workforce. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Düring B. (2006A) Sprint Driven Development: Agile Methodologies in a Distributed Open Source Project (PyPy). The 7th International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Düring, B. (2006B). Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy, EU-Funding and Agile Practices. AGILE 2006 Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA IEEE Computer Society’s Digital Library.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh, R. A. & R. Glott (2002). Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study-summary report. Workshop on Advancing the Research Agenda on Free/Open Source Software. Maastricht, Int’l Institute of Infonomics, Univ. of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutwin C., Penner R. & Schneider K. (2004) Group awareness in distributed software development. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 72–81, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hargreaves E., Damian D., Lanubile F. & Chisan J. (2004) Global Software Development: Building a Research Community. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 29, no. 5, September 2004, pp. 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herbsleb J. D. & Moitra D. (2001) Global Software Development. IEEE SOFTWARE, March/April 2001, pp. 16–20.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herbsleb J. D. & Grinter R. E. (1999 A) Architectures, Coordination, and Distance: Conway’s Law and Beyond. IEEE Software, 16(5): 63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holden H. (2006) Running a Sprint., Python Development Center. Available: (15/01/07).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim E. E. (2003) An Introduction to Open-Source communities. Blue Oxen Associates. Available: (19/01/07).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraut R. E. & Streeter L. A. (1995) Coordination in Software Development. In Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, no. 3, March 1995, pp. 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Millen D. R. (2000) Rapid ethnography: time deepening strategies for HCI field research. Conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and technique, New York, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mockus A., Fielding R. T. & Herbsleb J. D. (2002) Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Vol. 11, Issue 3 (July 2002), pp. 309–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orr J. (1996) Talking about machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, Ithaca, New York, IRL Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prikladnicki R. et al. (2003) Global software development in practice: lessons learned. Software process improvement and practice, vol. 8, 267–281, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahtz, S. (2004) Building Open Source Communities, OSS Watch, University of Oxford, Available: (20/12/06).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robey D, Huoy Min Khoo & Powers, C. (2000) Situated Learning in Cross-functional Virtual Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sahay S., Nicholson B. & Krischna S. (2003) Global IT Outsourcing: Software Development Across Borders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wenger E. (1998) Communitites of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ye, Y. and K. Kishida (2003). Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers. International Conference on Software Engineering-ICSE2003, Portland, OR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Sigfridsson
    • 1
  • Gabriela Avram
    • 1
  • Anne Sheehan
    • 1
  • Daniel K. Sullivan
    • 1
  1. 1.Interaction Design Centre, Dept. of Computer Science & ISUniversity of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations