Implicit Coordination: A Case Study of the Rails OSS Project

Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 451)

Abstract

Previous studies on coordination in OSS projects have studied explicit communication. Research has theorized on the existence of coordination without direct communication or implicit coordination in OSS projects, suggesting that it contributes to their success. However, due to the intangible nature of implicit coordination, no studies have confirmed these theories. We describe how implicit coordination can now be measured in modern collaborative development environments. Through a case study of a popular OSS GitHub-hosted project, we report on how and why features that support implicit coordination are used.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herbsleb, J.D.: Global software engineering: The future of socio-technical coordination. In: FSE 2007, pp. 188–198. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolici, F., Howison, J., Crowston, K.: Coordination without discussion? socio-technical congruence and stigmergy in free and open source software projects. In: STC 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elliot, M.: Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. m/c journal 9 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heylighen, F.: Why is open access development so successful? stigmergic organization and the economics of information. arXiv preprint cs/0612071 (2006)
  5. 5.
    Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., Herbsleb, J.: Social coding in github: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: CSCW 2012, pp. 1277–1286. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird, C.: Sociotechnical coordination and collaboration in open source software. In: ICSM 2011, pp. 568–573. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crowston, K., Wei, K., Li, Q., Eseryel, U.Y., Howison, J.: Coordination of free/libre and open source software development (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutwin, C., Penner, R., Schneider, K.: Group awareness in distributed software development. In: CSCW 2004, pp. 72–81. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howison, J., Crowston, K.: Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way. MIS Quarterly 38, 29–50 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dourish, P., Bellotti, V.: Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: CSCW 1992, pp. 107–114. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ko, A.J., DeLine, R., Venolia, G.: Information needs in collocated software development teams. In: ICSE 2007, pp. 344–353. IEEE CS (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damian, D., Izquierdo, L., Singer, J., Kwan, I.: Awareness in the wild: Why communication breakdowns occur. In: ICGSE 2007, pp. 81–90. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Souza, C.R., Redmiles, D.F.: An empirical study of software developers’ management of dependencies and changes. In: ICSE 2008, pp. 241–250. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blincoe, K., Valetto, G., Damian, D.: Facilitating coordination between software developers: A timely and efficient approach. Technical Report DCS-354-IR (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Treude, C., Storey, M.: Awareness 2.0: staying aware of projects, developers and tasks using dashboards and feeds. In: ICSE 2010, pp. 365–374. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singer, L., Figueira Filho, F.M., Storey, M.A.D.: Software engineering at the speed of light: how developers stay current using twitter. In: ICSE 2014, pp. 211–221 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gousios, G., Spinellis, D.: Ghtorrent: Github’s data from a firehose. In: MSR 2013, pp. 12–21. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalliamvakou, E., Gousios, G., Blincoe, K., Singer, L., German, D.M., Damian, D.: The promises and perils of mining github. In: MSR 2014, pp. 92–101. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Krishnan, R.: Marketing research. Cengage Learning (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Conway, M.E.: How do committees invent. Datamation 14, 28–31 (1968)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations