Onboarding vs. Diversity, Productivity and Quality — Empirical Study of the OpenStack Ecosystem
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
Despite the growing success of open-source software ecosystems (SECOs), their sustainability depends on the recruitment and involvement of ever-larger contributors. As such, onboarding, i.e., the socio-technical adaptation of new contributors to a SECO, forms a significant aspect of a SECO's growth that requires substantial resources. Unfortunately, despite theoretical models and initial user studies to examine the potential benefits of onboarding, little is known about the process of SECO onboarding, nor about the socio-technical benefits and drawbacks of contributors' onboarding experience in a SECO. To address these, we first carry out an observational study of 72 new contributors during an OpenStack onboarding event to provide a catalog of teaching content, teaching strategies, onboarding challenges, and expected benefits. Next, we empirically validate the extent to which diversity, productivity, and quality benefits are achieved by mining code changes, reviews, and contributors' issues with(out) OpenStack onboarding experience. Among other findings, our study shows a significant correlation with increasing gender diversity (65% for both females and non-binary contributors) and patch acceptance rates (13.5%). Onboarding also has a significant negative correlation with the time until a contributor's first commit and bug-proneness of contributions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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