The Governance and Control of Open Source Software Projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive set of governance mechanisms and dimensions were investigated to identify combinations of mechanisms that are effectively used together in on-going volunteer-based open source software (OSS) projects. Three configurations were identified: Defined Community, Open Community, and Authoritarian Community. Notably, Defined Community governance had the strongest coordination and project climate and had the most extensive use of outcome, behavior, and clan control mechanisms (controller driven). The controls in the Defined Community governance configuration appear to effectively enable open, coordinated contribution and participation from a wide variety of talented developers (one of the virtues of open source development) while managing the development process and outcomes. The results add to our theoretical understanding of control in different types of information systems projects, as the combination of control modes found in OSS projects is different from those found in previous research for internal or outsourced information systems development projects. This could be due to unique features of OSS projects, such as volunteer participation and the controller being part of the development team. The results provide guidance for practitioners about how to combine 19 identified governance mechanisms into effective project governance that stimulates productive participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it