The Impact of Formal QA Practices on FLOSS Communities – The Case of Mozilla

  • Adina Barham
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 378)


The number of FLOSS projects that include a QA step in the development model is increasing which suggests that a new layer may be emerging in the classic “onion model”. This change might affect the information flow within projects and implicitly their sustainability. Communities, the essential resource of FLOSS projects, have been extensively studied but questions concerning QA remain. This paper takes a step towards answering such questions by analyzing QA mailing lists and issue tracker data for the Mozilla group of projects. Because the Bugzilla data set contains over half a million bugs, data processing and analysis is a considerable challenge for this research. The provisional conclusions are that QA activity may not be increasing steadily over time but is dependent on other factors and that the QA team and other groups of contributors form a highly connected network that doesn’t contain isolates.


quality assurance test Mozilla social network analysis information flow 


  1. 1.
    Halloran, T.J., Scherlis, W.L.: High quality and open source software practices. In: 2nd Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hedberg, H., Iivari, N., Rajanen, M., Harjumaa, L.: Assuring Quality and Usability in Open Source Software Development. In: First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development, FLOSS 2007, p. 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michlmayr, M., Hunt, F., Probert, D.: Quality practices and problems in free software projects. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Open Source Systems, pp. 24–28 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmidt, D.C., Porter, A.: Leveraging open-source communities to improve the quality & performance of open-source software. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chengalur-Smith, I., Sidorova, A., Daniel, S.: Sustainability of Free/Libre Open Source Projects: A Longitudinal Study. JAIS 11 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiggins, A., Howison, J., Crowston, K.: Social dynamics of FLOSS team communication across channels. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Open Source Systems, vol. 275, pp. 131–142 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kilamo, T., Hammouda, I., Kairamo, V., Räsänen, P., Saarinen, J.P.: Applying Open Source Practices and Principles in Open Innovation: The Case of the Demola Platform. In: Hissam, S.A., Russo, B., de Mendonça Neto, M.G., Kon, F. (eds.) OSS 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 365, pp. 307–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watts, D.J.A.: Twenty-first century science. Nature 445(7127), 489–489 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, C., Scachi, W.: Role Migration and Advancement Processes in OSSD Projects: A Comparative Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 364–374 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quality in Open Source Software,
  11. 11.
    DiBona, C., Cooper, D., Cooper, M.: Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution. O’Reilly, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crowston, K., Howison, J.: The social structure of Free and Open Source software. First Monday 10(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spinellis, D., Gousios, G., Karakoidas, V., Louridas, P., Adams, P.J., Samoladas, I., Stamelos, I.: Evaluating the Quality of Open Source Software. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Quality and Maintainability. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 233 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T., Herbsleb, J.D.: Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache And Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(3), 309–346 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sowe, S., Ghosh, R., Haaland, K.: A Multi-Repository Approach to Study the Topology of Open Source Bugs Communities: Implications for Software and Code Quality. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, IEEE ICIME (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qualipso (Trust and Quality in Open Source Systems),
  17. 17.
    Oezbek, C., Prechelt, L., Thiel, F.: The Onion has Cancer: Some Social Network Analysis Visualizations of Open Source Project Communication. Psychology, Section 4, 4–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Masmoudi, H., den Besten, M.L., De Loupy, C., Dalle, J.M.: Peeling the Onion: The Words and Actions that Distinguish Core from Periphery in Bug Reports and How Core and Periphery Interact Together. In: Fifth International Conference on Open Source Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., Van Alstyne, M.: Productivity Effects of Information Diffusion in E-mail Networks. In: Proceedings of ICIS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aberdour, M.: Achieving Quality in Open Source Software. IEEE Software, 58–64 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burtland Comission: The Bruntland Report. United Nations (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adina Barham
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Social SciencesHitotsubashi UniversityKunitachiJapan

Personalised recommendations