New Paper: “Eight Observations and 24 Research Questions About Open Source Projects: Illuminating New Realities”

I am excited about this paper because we point out ways in which open source is evolving. And let me tell you, open source is changing a lot. This is relevant for researchers, because it shapes the story we can tell and the kind of questions most interesting. In fact, we identify 24 research questions we find intriguing.

Paper Abstract:

The rapid acceleration of corporate engagement with open source projects is drawing out new ways for CSCW researchers to consider the dynamics of these projects. Research must now consider the complex ecosystems within which open source projects are situated, including issues of for-profit motivations, brokering foundations, and corporate collaboration. Localized project considerations cannot reveal broader workings of an open source ecosystem, yet much empirical work is constrained to a local context. In response, we present eight observations from our eight-year engaged field study about the changing nature of open source projects. We ground these observations through 24 research questions that serve as primers to spark research ideas in this new reality of open source projects. This paper contributes to CSCW in social and crowd computing by delivering a rich and fresh look at corporately-engaged open source projects with a call for renewed focus and research into newly emergent areas of interest.

Read more..
This paper is open access and available from the ACM Digital Library.

 Full reference:

Germonprez, M., Link, G. J.P., Lumbard, K., & Goggins, S. (2018). Eight Observations and 24 Research Questions About Open Source Projects: Illuminating New Realities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 57:1–57:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274326

An Open Source Toolchain for Recording Interviews

TL;DR: When recording through conferencing system is unavailable, I use three open source tools to record interviews: OBS Studio, Blender, and Audacity.

As a qualitative researcher, I enjoy engaging with people directly and occasionally I want to record an interview. I conducted XL (roman numeral) interviews as part of my PhD and I figured out how to capture the audio and transcribe it. A primary concern is the quality of a recording. Because I am undoubtedly not alone, I describe here lessons learned and my open source tool chain.

My first attempt at recording an interview involved an old-school telephone on speakerphone and my smartphone with an audio recording app. The audio quality was abysmal. My voice was clear, but my informant’s voice was distorted through the analog transformation between phone speaker and smartphone microphone. I never tried this again.

The best solution is using the conferencing system that my university provides. The system allows my informants to connect via app, browser, or phone. In my experience, about 90% of informants join via app and activate their camera, which makes for a great conversation. The recording quality is only dependent on the microphones quality. Sometimes, I ask informants if they have an alternative they switch between a headphone to a built-in microphone.

This optimal solution is not always practical and some informants prefer to use alternative ways to connect, such as Skype, Jitsi, Meet.me, GoToMeeting, or a conferencing system they control. When I need to make a phone call, I use Google voice from my laptop. I developed a toolchain of open source software that allows me to record an interview in such settings. I use three tools: OBS Studio, Blender, and Audacity.

OBS Studio (Open Broadcaster Software Studio) allows to capture anything on my screen and record in-going and out-going audio. I simply record the audio output from my computer and my microphone input during an interview. The quality is the same as directly recording it through a conferencing solution. The downside is that OBS requires computing resources and at times bogs down my laptop. I end up with a *.flv video file that contains the desired audio.

Blender is a 3D modeling software but has powerful video editing capabilities. I recommend Mikeycal Meyers’ tutorial on how to get setup. Blender is overkill for extracting audio, but it is a tool I know. Once the *.flv file is loaded into Blender, I export the audio, without doing any editing. I end up with a *.flac audio file.

Finally, I use Audacity to cut the audio and tweak it. I edit any audio, whether recorded by OBS or a conferencing system, with three goals in mind. First, I cut the beginning and end because small talk is not important to my analysis. Second, I check to make sure my informant is audible. When the audio is too quiet, I boost it using Effect –> Compressor… for the whole audio or Effect –> Amplify… for small sections. Third, I shorten pauses using Effect –> Truncate Silence… which saves fees on transcription services. I export the final audio as an *.mp3 audio file.

After generating a good quality audio file, I need to transcribe the interview. I transcribed one interview myself using OTranscribe and it took me six hours for a one hour interview because I worked to get every word and half sentence and expression right. I quickly learned that this level of detail is hindering me and a more streamlined transcript is easier to analyze. After making this experience, I value having a research grant that pays for a transcription service and I am a returning customer of rev.com.

My first German paper

I am super excited!

For four years, I publish academic papers. All in English. Today, I have my first paper in my native language, German.

A big thanks to UNO Criss Library for funding the Open Access fees! It is great to have the amazing support for a future of a more open science.

I am very happy to have an amazing author team of Malvika Rao, Don Marti, Andy Leak, and Rich Bodo. They developed the core of the idea before I joined them and created a welcoming environment for me to learn so much and expand my horizon. – THANK YOU!

A big thanks to all of my test readers who provided invaluable feedback and helped me fix mistakes. Admittedly, I German grammar rules are different from English.

Without further due, the title and abstract of the paper:

Marktplatz zur Koordinierung und Finanzierung von Open Source Software

Open Source ist ein zunehmend beliebter Kollaborationsmechanismus für die Entwicklung von Software, auch in Unternehmen. Unsere Arbeit schafft die fehlende Verbindung zwischen Open Source Projekten, Unternehmen und Märkten. Ohne diese Verbindung wurden Koordinations- und Finanzierungsprobleme sichtbar, die zu schwerwiegenden Sicherheitslücken führen. In diesem Paper entwickeln wir acht Design Features, die ein Marktplatz für Open Source haben sollte, um diese Probleme zu beseitigen. Wir begründen jedes Design Feature mit den bestehenden Praktiken von Open Source und stellen einen Prototypen vor. Abschließend diskutieren wir, welche Auswirkungen die Einführung eines solchen Marktplatzes haben könnte.

Weiterlesen…
Der Artikel ist open access und bei Springer verfügbar.

Marketplace to Coordinate and Finance Open Source Software

The popularity of open source as a collaboration mechanism for developing software is increasing. Organizations increase their engagement. In our work, we draw the missing connection between open source projects, organizations, and markets. Without this connection, we have seen severe software vulnerability result from coordination and financing breakdowns. In this paper, we develop eight design features that a market place for open source should have to address these breakdowns. We develop the design features based on literature about the practices of open source. We present a prototype and discuss what implications would result from implementing such a market place.

Read more… (in German) 
The paper is open access and available from Springer.

Full reference:

Link, G. J. P., Rao, M., Marti, D., Leak, A., & Bodo, R. (2018). Marktplatz zur Koordinierung und Finanzierung von Open Source Software. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-018-00474-6

Is open source wealth distribution fair?

I published the following blog post originally on Opensource.com.

If wealth is the abundance of valuable possessions, open source has a wealth of software. While no one “owns” open source, some are better than others at converting this communal wealth to personal wealth.

Many open source project maintainers who produce free open source software do not have a model for deriving income from the assets they have created. However, companies that use open source software to enhance their products and services convert this valuable asset into income.

The open source ecosystem needs novel mechanisms to distribute privatized wealth back to maintainers if open source projects are to remain sustainable. In this post, I’ll discuss the challenges of distributing wealth more fairly, starting with three key observations:

  • We need to identify projects that are important and need funding.
  • We lack fair rules for distributing money among open source project contributors.
  • Transaction costs are too high in underbanked areas. Bugmark and ossgrants (both discussed below) are two project ideas for addressing this problem.

Wealth creation in open source

The wealth created by open source rests today on an imbalance between those who bear the costs and those who enjoy the income. Consider the following example:

An amateur developer creates an open source project as a side project or hobby and releases the software free of charge. The software increases communal wealth when users derive value from it. Companies in particular leverage the open source software in their innovation stream, building products and services with less investment and converting valuable open source software assets into income.

A growing user base brings more support inquiries, bug reports, and feature requests, which take more time and increase costs for the maintainer. A community of contributors might form and share the work of developing and maintaining the software. Sharing the cost of creating communal wealth by contributing, however, does not provide income for the maintainer, who cannot generate personal wealth without mechanisms that distribute income from other users.

It is important to recognize that maintainers need to make a living, and if they have no income from open source projects, they likely have another job—which reduces the time they can spend on maintaining open source software. A lack of funding for open source projects becomes problematic when the software is part of our modern infrastructure and requires long-term maintenance.

The relationship between those who create open software and those who generate income from this communal wealth.

The relationship between those who create open software and those who generate income from this communal wealth.

The question then becomes: How can the wealth created by use of open source software be distributed to support long-term maintenance by paying maintainers?

At MozFest 2018, 23 people gathered to discuss this question. In small groups, participants discussed problems of interest, chose one problem to work on, and later presented their solutions to the larger group. This post summarizes key takeaways from this presentation and draws on ideas discussed during Sustain Summit 2018.

Participants in MozFest 2018 met to discuss open source wealth distribution.

Participants in MozFest 2018 met to discuss open source wealth distribution.

 

Why and how to share wealth

A central question is this: Why would companies share the income they generate from using open source software?

For-profit companies are seen as profit maximizers, and sharing revenue with open source maintainers, who license their intellectual property for free, seems counterintuitive. One survey found that 50% of respondents believe that large tech companies gain more from using open source than they contribute, which demonstrates that companies generate means to give back by using open source. (Note that I am not referring to the many open source projects companies actively maintain, or those that a company started. The focus here is on volunteer-driven communities.)

Three concrete value propositions can convince a company to pay open source maintainers:

  • Donating to open source projects earns a good name within the open source ecosystem. Donating to a project or a maintainer—for example via Patreon, OpenCollective, or an open source foundation—funds development work without exerting influence.
  • Funding open source maintenance ensures that an open source project will be updated and vulnerabilities fixed, which is important for companies that rely on the software for their products, services, and infrastructure.
  • A company gains influence over the strategic direction of an open source project when a donation or membership fee is rewarded with access to core maintainers. Special access can require that maintainers sign non-disclosure agreements and help develop solutions for vulnerabilities that may not yet have been publicly disclosed.

An open source project can also start a company that provides hosting and support services, and collect funds by selling their services. This is the most formalized way of securing funds and provides a clear value proposition. The key point is that a maintainer must figure out how to participate in the economy around open source software.

Distributing wealth: 3 practical issues

The following issues arise when the donation model is used:

First, not every project benefits equally from funds. Do you rely on open source software that might become unsupported if you do not donate to the project? The goal of such an evaluation is to find weak spots in an open source supply chain that can be strengthened with the least amount of cost. Consider using metrics, like the ones created by the CHAOSS project, for determining the health of an open source project. How exactly to identify open source projects that need funding before they become unmaintained is an unsolved problem. The Core Infrastructure Initiative has developed the Census Project to work on a solution. TideLift takes an innovative approach, paying more than $1 million to open source project maintainers based on how much a project is used.

Second, how should funds be distributed among open source project members? Defining how donations will be used should be declared upfront to avoid conflict. One approach might be to recognize individual contributors based on their contributions. For example, you could distribute funds based on the number of issues closed, commits accepted, lines added, wiki pages edited, documentation pages revised, forum messages posted, blog posts published, or other quantifiable contributions. But not all contribution types to a project can be measured—for example, organizing meetings and presenting at conferences are valuable but time-intensive contributions that do not produce trace data in a collaboration software. Every project must set its own rules, but we can share stories and best practices. Open Collective brings this conversation to the public.

Third, transaction costs hinder fair distribution of the wealth created by open source. Specifically, many people in underbanked regions struggle with the logistics of receiving payments. When an open source team member must wait for hours to cash a check, the cost of the time might outweigh the amount they receive for their work. This very real problem may be beyond the scope of what open source projects can do (except perhaps initiatives for Web3), but it deserves attention. Ultimately, the solution is to bring banking to all people and improve the interoperability of banking systems around the world.

Facilitating and incentivizing wealth transfer

There are many initiatives to solve the sustainability problem in open source, but I’ll highlight two projects that I find intriguing.

Bugmark answers the question of who within an open source project should get paid, and how much, by creating a marketplace that introduces price signals to open source. The Bugmark exchange allows trading on the status of an issue—for example, issues listed by an open source project on their GitHub issue tracker. Unlike bug bounties, trading on the status of an issue is independent of doing work. By decoupling payment and work, Bugmark has the potential to fund open source work that is not reliant on fixing an issue. For example, a project member who does bug triaging, an honorable but tedious task, has in-depth knowledge of how a project is doing and what is being worked on. This person can use their insider knowledge to trade on Bugmark and earn money. For more details on how Bugmark works, I recommend this publication.

Funding Index is an early-stage idea that revolves around donations. Donations provide a project with money without restrictions. Donations benefit companies, but the publicity effect is short-lived. At SustainSummit, we developed an idea to capture donations more permanently and create a funding index. Donations would be logged and aggregated across companies and projects. Similar to consumer rating agencies that rate products and services, this index would rate companies by how much they donate to open source projects relative to how many employees they have. We could produce badges for “#1 donor to open source,” “#1 donor to infrastructure open source projects,” or “#1 mid-sized company donor to open source.” Such a badge would extend the publicity effect of donations and hopefully incentivize companies to donate more. Funding Index exists in a first prototype and welcomes discussions on the Discourse Forum.

Sustainability is more than funding

Funding helps to pay for living expenses, servers, stickers, and travel to conferences to enable face-to-face collaboration. Funding is a necessary component of a sustainable open source project, but it requires additional elements.

A sustainable open source project fosters a healthy community, which is welcoming, provides a productive work environment, supports its members, and is prepared to let members move on when their focus in life changes. These governance and community concerns build the foundation from which open source projects work, and once they are in place, funding can leverage the work and help project members excel.

A final thought: Companies that are willing to financially support open source projects need to see the business value. Currently, there is no single solution that fits all open source project contexts. Every open source project may need to experiment for themselves and find a way to secure funds. Umbraco, for example, built a sustainable business around its open source CMS system and has experimented with 11 different business models since its inception in 2004.

More conversations are needed, and experiences must be shared. SustainOSS.org brings sustainers together to have these conversations. In conclusion, fair distribution of the wealth created by open source can enhance what already works well in open source, but it will not replace traditional open source practices.

Post Scriptum

I acknowledge that companies and foundations also create open source projects. Sustainability issues exist nonetheless, and takeaways transfer.

Acknowledgments

I’d like to thank all MozFest 2018 session participants, especially the note-takers. I appreciate constructive feedback from Sean Goggins and Tobie Langel. I received a Linux Foundation Community Travel Fund to present at Open Source Summit Europe 2018 in Edinburgh, which allowed me to participate in the SustainSummit and MozFest in London later during the same week. This work is supported through the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Digital Technology grant on Open Source Health and Sustainability, Num: 8434

 

Open Leaders Interview About CHAOSS Project

This fall, I participate in the Mozilla Open Leaders 6 program. This program is for helping community leaders to adopt more inclusive and open work practices. I participated for my engagement with the CHAOSS project. Chad Sansing from Open Leaders interviewed me about my experience.

You can read the full interview here: https://medium.com/@MozOpenLeaders/the-chaoss-project-open-leaders-6-37c2799c2dd3