Free software community functioning

Science Studies 2/2007

The Functioning of a Free Software
Community:
Entanglement of Three Regulation Modes
– Control, Autonomous and Distributed
Didier Demazière, François Horn and Marc Zune

The ability to build solid and coherent software from spontaneous, sudden and
evanescent involvement is viewed as an enigma by sociologists and economists.
The internal heterogeneity of project contributors questions the functioning of
collective action: how can commitments that are so dissimilar be put together? Our
objective is to consider FLOSS communities as going concerns which necessitate a
minimum of order and common, shared, social rules to function. Through an in-depth
and diachronic analysis of the Spip project, we present two classical modes of social
regulation: a control regulation centred on the product and an autonomous regulation
reflecting the differentiated commitments. Our data shows that the meaning, value
and legitimacy of contributors’ involvements are defined and rated more collectively,
through exchanges, judgments, and evaluations. A third regulation mode, called
distributed community regulation and aimed at creating and transforming shared rules
that produces recognition and stratification, is then presented.

Keywords: Free software, social regulation, Spip project, ethnographic approach
Free software can be considered as public al., 2007). In this context, free software
property made available to all, with no developers and contributors accept to
acquisition costs and a user license that dedicate working time and freely supply
provides total freedom to use the code their know-how, despite the fact that they
and a guarantee that no one will be able to are not able to choose, limit or control
monopolize the source code (West, 2003). those who are going to benefit from
The organizational forms supporting and their efforts (Bitzer & Schröder, 2005;
supervising the activities surrounding Lerner & Tirole, 2002). This situation is
the production of such software are rather unusual compared to the common
very diverse, but most of them have production modes managed by salary
several main characteristics in common: or contract-based work relationships
volunteer work by the participants, long- or even legal mechanisms framed
distance work, little direct interactions, by employment or commercial law
and absence of salary (Demazière et (Gensollen, 2007; Horn, 2004). The only

34
Science Studies, Vol. 20 (2007) No. 2, 34-54


contractual link is established by the projects actually function. Because the
open license, which acts as a barrier members interact at a distance in the
against opportunistic behaviours (Dalle & world of free software, using the facilities
Jullien, 2003), beside other tactics aimed of the Internet network, the classical
at preventing proprietary appropriation, communities studied by anthropologists
such as foundations, legal and normative do not constitute an appropriate model
sanctions, trademark on logo, etc. (Baym, 1995; von Krogh & von Hippel,
(O’Mahony, 2003). Finally, voluntary 2003).
participation is, in principle, not based
on any structured organizational system, Necessity and plurality
such as, e.g., decentralization, openness, of the regulations
absence of specifications, deadline Sociological analyses of free software
constraints, or specific coordination development projects have shown
(Holtgrewe & Werle, 2001), but on a series that the success of some of them is not
of shared action principles: meritocracy the result of some kind of mysterious
based on competences alone, participative alchemy or supernatural circumstances
leadership, freedom of involvement, etc. (Lin, 2005). The software production
(Moon & Sproull, 2002; Raymond, 1999; activity cannot be conducted without
Hertel et al., 2003). the mobilisation of individuals or the
The ability to achieve solid and coherent coordination of a collective. In other
results from spontaneous, sudden and words, it takes the form of an organized
evanescent involvement is viewed as an and regulated action, structuring the
enigma by sociologists and economists. exchanges between participants. The
The endogenous literature offers an production modes of these projects
answer to this enigma, by promoting the are also hybrid, combining private and
‘bazaar model’. Although this concept is a collective innovation models (von Hippel
core belief in the free software community, & Krogh, 2003). In organizational modes,
empirical validation is not convincing: a it results in a combination between
simple comparison between thousands the required constraint-generating
of free software programs is enough to coordination and valorisation of
observe an extreme heterogeneity in individual investments. Thus the social
the organizational modes and action integration of individuals within the
processes, as well as in the contributors’ communities has specificities requiring
involvement processes (Crowston & the production of operational rules to
Howison, 2005). The widespread use of govern the conduct of both individual
the term ‘community’ to name the forms and collective projects simultaneously
of collective action suggests another (Wenger, 1998), despite the fact that the
answer to that enigma: the individuals more influential or central individuals
participating in the free software cannot mandate or enforce the work
development projects share values, norms (Himanen, 2001). Ostrom (1990) has
and action principles that are strong evidenced the resistance of individuals
enough to weld the groups together and to the enforcement of operational rules
channel their activity towards a shared generated by outside authorities, and to
objective. The ‘bazaar’ or ‘community’ rules which have not been sufficiently
categories obviously represent an ideal elaborated or discussed collectively.
focal point. However, they provide little Moreover, these rules are only viewed as
information on the way free software legitimate when they are tailored to local

35


conditions, and when the members of the for these ‘going concerns’ to function,
community monitor the compliance of no matter what their characteristics, a
their enforcement. This leads us to point minimum of order and common, shared,
to the specific characteristics of the social social rules are necessary. This order
control of the members, which cannot itself is generated by collective action,
rely on traditional tools like sanctions and is elaborated and transformed
and exclusion (Kollock & Smith, 1996), during exchanges and transactions
and the specific modes of dividing between members. In other words,
work and allocating authority (Garcia & these projects are highly processual:
Steinmueller, 2003). they are characterized by negotiations
Empirical studies of free software and permanent adjustments. They are
development communities suggest that organized actions in which rules are
social control is less preponderant than interpreted and adjusted, and individual
in other forms of organisations (Demil motivations and preferences altered
& Lecocq, 2006). However, that does not (Atkinson & Reed, 1992).
mean that simply because contributions Our objective is to describe and
are voluntary and not remunerated, there analyse these rule-creation processes.
is no control, since field studies have also Our starting point is that the rules are not
indicated that these communities are exogenous to social relations, and that
structured and differentiated (Stewart, they are not generated by a transcendental
2005). In our opinion, internal structuring order: society is wired together by the
and differentiation are essential, at least interactions between its members, and
when communities succeed in attracting the rule is a collective production (Blumer,
new members and when projects go 1969). The fact that rules are considered
beyond the initial launching phase. as immanent (Paradeise, 1989) has major
These communities are constantly facing consequences for the sociological study.
irreducible tensions: between internal First, it means that we must address the
unity guaranteeing the coherence of source of these regulations, in essence
the collective action’s product and the the situations prevailing at their creation
increasing diversity due to the success of and the interactions through which they
the product, as well as between maximum are transformed. It favours the analysis
openness favouring the enrolment of of the dynamics of social regulation as
new members and access filtering to opposed to the study of set and rigid rules.
control the quality of the applicants. It also moves the focus of attention to the
Our hypothesis is that these tensions are production of collective regulations.
managed via the combination of various The emergent central question from
mechanisms to regulate the activity of this orientation is the distribution of
these communities, as well as by their regulation capabilities. This distribution
adjustment to the events and episodes is described by sociological literature as
marking the history of each project. lacking uniformity and instead depending
Therefore, we can consider these on the position occupied and the frame
projects as ‘going concerns’ (Commons, of interactions it structures. In the
1961), in other words collective actions extreme case, it is the actors occupying
with some stability and continuity, and monopolizing power positions who
achieving results approved by the users lead the organizations or the projects
and based on relationships characterized by producing and spreading the leading
by a mix of dependency and conflict. But, norms. This centralized regulation

36


model, usually called ‘control regulation’ regulation by showing the pertinence
contrasts with the aggregation of multiple of its central concepts, but also their
‘autonomous regulations’, which are shortcomings, and by proposing a more
mastered by many disjointed groups articulate conceptualisation of the free
trying to get a grasp on the development software production.
conditions of their activity (Reynaud,
1988). A longitudinal and
These analytical concepts have ethnographic approach
been tested on several fields but have Our perspective led us to opt for a
never been put into play to study the longitudinal ethnographic analysis of
functioning of collectives involved in free medium-size projects. Considering the
software production (De Terssac, 2003). In fact that regulation processes are locally
this specific case, autonomous regulation situated, an in-depth study must provide
initially appears more significant than the opportunity to retrace the interaction
control regulation. In any case, it suggests systems leading to regulation by
the notion of ‘communities’. However, observing the exchanges between actors,
from this regulation arises the problem, the ways in which regulation or value
essential for software development, of conflicts are resolved, the organizational
the way product coherence is achieved adjustments performed, the diverse
and contributions are organized in forms of participation and the meanings
an efficient, active digital text (Horn, of this experience. Moreover, since
2004). Considering this constraint, we regulation is elaborated and iterative, a
can support the idea of the coexistence certain historicity should be considered.
of multiple forms of regulation in the A longitudinal follow-up of the project
activity of free software production. is recommended in order to be able to
More specifically, we postulate that grasp both the multiple temporalities
classical regulatory forms (control and characterizing the action, as well as the
autonomous) constitute an insufficient adjustment of the rules confronted by
basis for the analysis, since these forms are the evolution of the participation. In this
too closely linked to formally hierarchical context, medium-size projects represent
organizations. We hypothesize that in free perfect observation points. The projects
software communities, the production involving very few individuals present
of rules organizing collective action and very limited, or even absent forms of
structuring individual behaviours is collective regulation. Large-scale projects
widely socialized, with each participant instead develop more codified, stabilised
being a potential producer of rules and and prescriptive forms of regulations, as
controller of their application. Other, shown in high-profile projects like Linux
diffuse regulation mechanisms would (Hertel et al., 2003 ; Lee & Cole, 2003),
thus come into play, completing the more Apache (Franke & von Hippel, 2003) or
classical forms. Our objective is thus to Debian (Auray, 2004). The power of these
describe the plural regulations of the projects in terms of reputation attracts
collective software production activity by numerous contributions, and favours the
opting for the analysis of the processes: establishment of control, selection, and
how do rules prevail, and how are they entry filtering procedures.
discussed, how are they maintained? In this respect, Spip, an Internet
With a more theoretical perspective, the publishing software, is an interesting
idea is to contribute to the theory of social project to analyze for several reasons.

37


First of all, it is a medium-size project different activities and at different levels
(a few dozen active developers) that of commitment (initiators of the project,
has reached the status of challenger regular coders, occasional contributors,
within its niche. It is thus facing tough translators, debuggers, etc.) focusing
quality requirements, while the quality of on the individual contributions to the
contributions ranges from best to worst software, the collective functioning and
in projects (McKelvey, 2001). In addition, the biographic itineraries, but also the
the Spip project is also characterized by direct observation of project meetings
the fact that it was initially supported by and the public restitution of the first
— and designed for — French left-wing analyses. The study helped describe
activists, thus having a strong underlying the organization of the project and the
political and ideological orientation. Our developed activities, the characteristics
analysis of the project relies on empirical of the participants and the meanings
fieldwork, performed by the three they assign to their contributions, the
authors between February 2005 and April form of relationships developed between
2007. In accordance with our research the contributors and the content of the
perspectives, we gradually plunged into exchanges — in other words, a sum of
this social world, like ethnographers who material that can be utilized to identify
live for a while in the human communities the rules supporting the collective that
they are studying. For the success of this produces the Spip software.
‘virtual ethnography’ (Hine, 2000), we had Our argumentation will be developed
to get the contributors to trust us, since our in three phases. By retracing the genesis
objective was to harvest a broad range of of the Spip project and its progressive
material for closer examination to assess structuring, we will examine the necessity
the functioning of the ‘Spip community’ for promoters to maintain coherence
and above all, to enquire into its regulation and preserve, over time, its conformity
processes. In that context, running online with a very strong original ideological
questionnaires or using mailing lists were project. However, this first form of control
not the most appropriate investigation regulation requires that the autonomy
techniques. Our investigation had to of the most active contributors be
favour the interactions, exchanges, and acknowledged and encouraged. We will
adjustments between participants in then focus on the approaches underlying
order to be able to identify the rules they the involvement of the participants
structure and model. occupying an intermediary position
To gain insight into the heart of the between the strategic core, including the
transactions, we had to establish close initiators of the project, and the minor
proximity to the developers, which or volatile contributors, and show the
made us choose an intensive, longer- specificities of autonomous regulation.
term research design. This gave us Finally, we will show that contributor
the opportunity to combine several involvement does not derive exclusively
investigative methods, featuring the from their individual activities, but that
observation of on-line exchanges the meaning, value and legitimacy of
through multiple communication and this involvement are defined and rated
cooperation channels (forums, IRC, more collectively, through exchanges,
CVS), 27 in-depth, one-on-one research judgments, and evaluations between
interviews with participants involved in the participants of this project. This will

38


give us the opportunity to examine the tool to simplify Web page generation and
‘distributed’ aspect of this third form of site management. The project can be
regulation. summarized as follows: to allow everyone,
no matter what their level of technical
A control regulation focused on the skills and means, to be able to express
product his point of view on the Internet, freely
and independently. This new software
The time-based analysis, focused on was initially designed exclusively for
the maturing and the launch of the the operation of the uzine.net website.
Spip software, underlines the stakes Upon request from sympathizers, it was
of the project in terms of growth, and later shared and then made public under
maintenance of this growth. It indicates GPL license. With this shift a software
the production of rules, oriented towards development phase emerged, one that
two objectives: first, to mobilize many ended up gathering a growing number of
contributors who are willing and able contributors and users.
to get involved in the development of Initially, the project was carried out by
the product, and then, to preserve the three persons, all closely involved with
coherence of the software and safeguard multiple activist networks: 1995 strikes,
its original identity. The convergence of Act-Up, the movement for the defence
these two objectives cannot be taken for of the illegal immigrants, etc. It was
granted; it requires the creation of specific developed progressively and informally,
regulations. Because of their position and without prior definition of explicit
their legitimacy acquired in the launch objectives, planning or anticipation of
of the software, the initiators have strong results:
capabilities in terms of initiative in these
processes. It’s just a project, people were talking
about something, and then we
Origins and emergence thought: instead of sending emails
The Spip project started in the nineties. with a copy to everyone, we are going
Its roots can be traced back to the French to build a list […] But actually, there
activist and associative community, was no organization, no big project, no
experimenting ways by which Internet master plan. It was just [that] among
could contribute to enhancing freedom all projects, there was one, it was Spip.
of expression. Grouped under the We were going to exchange our bits of
denomination Minirézo, some activists code. (Gil, historical founder)
developed a publishing site with critical
ideas about the development of Internet Then, slowly, exchanges intensified
(uzine.net), and progressively reached between three developers, who were
an increasingly large group of actors contributing technical skills that were
with a manifesto published in February widely acquired by practice: one of them,
1997, the ‘Independent Web Manifesto’. trained as an airline pilot, was specialized
Its promoters expressed their intent to in publishing scientific books; the second
fight the menace of commercial control was a telecom engineer doing freelance
on ‘digital’ freedom of speech. To help work; and the third, a mathematician, was
activists and sympathizers express a webmaster for a major monthly opinion
themselves easily on the site, one of the magazine. All three were involved in the
initiators decided to develop a software ‘Independent Web Manifesto’.

39


The core that was later to become the diversity took on significant proportions,
founders of Spip worked together on the considering the strong hybridizing
definition of the software features, and between the initial political project and
agreed on the way to include political the chosen development orientations.
and ethical principles derived from Ensuring software development requires
their participation in Minirezo. So, the attracting enough contributors to support
specificities of this publishing process the increasing extent and complexity of the
on the web were established: projects project, but also necessitates channelling
proposals for articles within a private the input and to select the contributions
space, validation of articles by actors other as a function of the objectives pursued in
than the editor (after debate on the forum), terms of norms.
systematic addition of a forum below
each article published, limitation of the Growth and structuring
number of decision levels, enhancement The success of a free software project
of the layout functionalities (and later, rapidly generates a flow of questions:
of language management), user-friendly it calls for guidance and requests for
interface, improved performance to advice, which must be addressed in order
allow installation on outdated servers, to reinforce the credibility of the product
avoidance of user identification and and the project. This increased load,
tracking systems, etc. The objective was corresponding to a growing user base, goes
to translate the ideological orientations automatically together with increased
aimed at the support and promotion of pressure on the initiators and drivers of the
freedom of speech on the Internet into project. It materializes in asymmetrical
technical choices. and unbalanced relationships, in which
After its launch, promoted by a wide the recipient is assumed to master
communication campaign on the knowledge the other one is lacking.
Internet, the software rapidly became There is a non-negligible risk of these
a success, generating an increase, not relationships imperceptibly getting closer
only in the number of users, but also to a client/supplier relationship and of
contributors. As a network of remote seeing the development of a polarized
participants started to grow, and as the world between a core of developers and
software extended its visibility beyond a cloud of users.
the world of activists, the motivations, In the case of Spip, there is indeed
behaviours, references and expectations a central core, whose existence is not
started diversifying. This increasing formally recognized, but widely known
heterogeneity corresponded both to under the tag ‘the four musketeers’,
a diversification of the institutional composed of developers who have CVS
origins (simple individuals, associations, access and the keepers of the politico-
companies, public organizations, etc.), technical identity of the project. These
of the know-how proposed (translation, core members are bound by strong
layout, documentation, coding, testing), interpersonal relationships, nurtured by
or opportunities generated by the use frequent meetings outside the context
of the software (increasingly close links of the project, shared philosophical or
with the professional activity, requests political orientations that also materialize
for services, the necessity to adapt the in the support to other projects, actions,
software to specific needs). Therefore, or activist campaigns. By contrast, the
the question of the management of this number of participants representing a

40


volatile, distant, uninvolved, anonymous benefited from the approval and even the
or unstable relationship grew significantly. mandate from members of the strategic
Unlike the members of the core, their circle, in the form of providing advice,
investment was sporadic, irregular, sharing confidential information, and
and unpredictable. Their potential establishing privileged contacts. The
contributions are limited but not fact that they delegated responsibility
worthless: some documentation, bits of for the animation of the community can
code, improvement ideas, identification also be perceived as granting a special
of bugs are produced by them. status to reward the contributors with
To face this situation (a few the strongest involvement, and acts as a
participants who are strongly involved in motivation factor as well.
the development and increasing number
of participants who only offer limited Autonomous regulations based
contributions), it is vital to reconfigure on differentiated commitments
the collective action. The circle of
significant contributors must be widened Control regulation is exerted on
to be able to simultaneously ensure the the software product. It consists in
continuous development of the software centralizing the activities related to the
and to address the outside solicitations assessment, selection, and adaptation of
while concomitantly pushing back the contributions, in order to maintain their
boundaries to minimize the difference technical coherence and preserve their
between simple users and contributors. conformity with the original ideological
It is essential to structure the mobilized project over time. It does not, however,
collective around development, result in the establishment of barriers
improvement, updates, and distribution to entry or taking social control of
of the software, without which the participant ideological orientation. An
differentiation remains too strong underlying prerequisite for the continuity
between an active minority, limited to the of the Spip project is its capacity to
circle of the initial producers, and a circle mobilize and recruit new participants.
of users of varying size. The risk inherent to openness is to see
This structuring process, commanded the ‘community’ crumble or fragment
by the central core, consisted in into small entities, because of increasing
spotting the contributors who were internal heterogeneity and the emergence
particularly involved in order to delegate of conflicts, notably in terms of values.
a few responsibilities to them, and Even without considering participants
simultaneously, to segment the internal who provide minor or occasional
organization into sub-spaces with contributions, developers with significant
specialized functions. Progressively, and sustained investments produce
discussion lists appeared, dedicated to widely divergent interpretations of their
special themes, aimed at different types commitment and their participation.
of contributors. Some of them were put in What is more, the analysis of the motives
charge of the administration of these lists, invoked, the interests pursued and
and were thus placed in an intermediate the justifications put forward show
position between the strategic core and the coexistence of contradictory and
the peripheral circle of the sporadic conflicting significations. These are not
or volatile users and contributors. In merely incentives, even if they provide
most cases, this intermediate circle a meaning, a purpose, rationales, to

41


the activity (Gosh et al., 2002). They one in a series of activist experiences,
can be considered as consistent sets of materialized by memberships in
symbols, all the more resistant since they associations, political parties, and social
are strongly rooted in their biographic movements. These activities are variable,
itineraries, generating autonomous as a function of the individual’s life
action rules, and more or less disjointed history, but they situate the ideological
from control regulation. orientations around the non-institutional
It is for the contributors engaged in left-wing community. Ernesto considers
these intermediate positions that the his political involvement as evidence
question of the involvement in the Spip and a direct consequence of his personal
project seems to be most interesting. history: “I was born Uruguayan and I’m
They show a stronger and more sustained a political exile, thus I fell into political
involvement than the peripheral commitment without even knowing
participants who only produce sporadic it, if you see what I mean”. Ferdinand’s
and minor contributions (bug reports, political involvement is less steady, but
for example), or mere users who flag is however part of his life trajectory:
errors that are obstacles to their own use “in 2004, I decided to get back in touch
of the software. At the same time, they with the political activist action I had
differ from the members of the strategic abandoned for several years”. Georges,
core controlling the development of the on the other hand, has accumulated a
software and form an inter-knowledge very solid and diversified experience
group bound together by common activist as an activist over his student years:
experiences. The intermediate position “I always had multiple involvements,
could be characterized by the intensity of since you’re always interested by many
the involvement and the responsibilities other things, it’s the way you build your
taken on, generating a significant workload political conscience”. There are many
together with a limited retribution due other examples indicating diversified
notably to the fact that the strategic core but recurrent processes of socialization
of the initiators remains closed. Light toward collective action. This presents
can be shed on the involvement of these a similitude with the activist approach
contributors through the analysis of of the initiators of the Spip project, but
the biographic factors underlying their it is far more diversified and does not
participation in the collective action. constitute a real community of shared
In this context, based on the biographic experiences.
interviews performed (Strauss & Corbin, The first contact with the Spip project
1990; Demazière & Dubar, 1997), we were is often linked to other involvements. The
able to identify three types of trajectories typical case is the one in which the project
that each combined special involvement to develop an Internet site for an activist
outside the project, personal use of the association or organization leads to the
software, as well as privileged projection use of Spip: an initial involvement goes
spaces. through the question/answer routine on
the user help site, then the answers to
A politico-technological activist other users; slowly, the political dimension
approach of the software comes forward, through
For the first set of trajectories, the individual exchanges, debates resonating
involvement in the Spip project, and more with personal political sensibilities. As
globally in the world of free software, is Georges points out: “There are very few

42


free software projects in which there is one’s competence as a developer. Charles
a political dimension that’s so strongly points out that before discovering the
defined. (…) we don’t hesitate having Spip project, he would wander from one
politically- and ethically-oriented small project to another (re-writing the
discussions, including their impact on features of a genealogy software package,
features. (…) Here at Spip, we examine developing a graphical interface for
the notion of ‘what model of society software comparing telephone rates, etc.),
should we promote through this’”. The until the day he got interested in CMS.
Spip project becomes a cause to support, He followed the new trends, tried several
and the search for new collaborators software packages, without, however,
becomes an objective: “very soon, we looking for a particular use: “I had no
start to feel co-responsible for this thing, particular need on … I do not develop
and to think that it’s a good thing that this web sites, I had one personal web site,
project can survive, I really would like to so I had tried it in Spip, just like that, for
support it, and that’s why we’re answering the fun. Thus I tried Spip and liked it”. For
the users (…) it’s because we consider Nicolas, the logic is the same: “in my case,
that’s interesting for Spip to have a pool I fell for the technical side rather than the
of tens of thousands of users. And yes, it’s user side, since I am an IT professional,
obvious; we feel that we are really part of when I heard about that thing, I was
the game”. more interested in discovering how it
The involvement in the project worked than discovering the possible
intersects other activist implications, applications, since at that time, I had no
since the participants concerned are then specific need for the product. It was more
able to put into play the resources derived about technical curiosity”.
from their experience as activists, as well Here the investment in the Spip project
as the technical competence already can be described as a type of hobby, the
developed for the creation of sites. technical aspect of which constitutes
the motor and the fuel. Participation is
A ‘technological fun’ approach immediately materialized by proposing
A second approach to enter the project bits of code, ‘contribs’. When Nicolas
is shared by individuals who justify submits these ‘bits of code’ and these
their initial commitment by mostly contributions are not selected, he is not
technological interest. In this case, discouraged, since the stakes are not high
technology is a stake in their personal and for him: “I do that mostly to kill time; I
technological evolution. Their IT activity really had no serious needs”. The choice
is considered as a mode of expression of Spip is also motivated by the relatively
and creativity, favouring the resolution small size of the project, in contrast with
of problems by trial and error, patching, the ‘big’ projects, like Mozilla or Linux,
technical challenges, and more generally “(…) actually, Spip still has an almost
a passionate relationship with technology human size while being big enough to
and innovation. have a lively community, and that makes
Initially, participation in the Spip you want to chat with the people who are
project was for these people motivated by involved”.
curiosity for the technical developments The contributors with this approach
of the product: the goal is not to find a are IT professionals, but their professional
tool that can be used to develop a site, but activity has no real direct link to the
rather to find a stimulating space to exert Spip software, or more globally to free

43


software. Most of the time, their work The development of websites for clients
revolves around proprietary technologies provides him with the opportunity to
that they are in charge of implementing develop a R&D activity, hoping that one
or maintaining for clients through day one of his ideas will capture the
service providers, for example in banking attention of investors. Unemployed,
institutions. We could hypothesize that Damien took the time to train himself
their involvement in the project provides to the use of Spip and started a website
the opportunity for those IT professionals development business mostly for public
to get back in touch with the roots of their contractors: “in this unemployment
job, while the technologies favoured in period, it was vital for me to make money
their professional context do not allow (…) thus I read the whole manual before
them access to the technical black box, whipping up my first Spip site (…)
to be able to understand by themselves and then Spip became another way of
how the software functions, to be able to continuing to make a living”. Others with
hack appropriated technical solutions, this approach are freelance workers in
to prove their creativity, their technical the domain of Internet technologies and
boldness, in short, to achieve a certain consider the fact of developing an activity
intimacy with technology (Kunda, 1992). around Spip as a new tool in their tool kit.
The Spip project thus becomes a sort of This is the case for Michel, who works with
technological playground, an opportunity Spip for several clients: “there are people
to meet and develop projects, of which who want to sell tailor-made products for
the usefulness is not evaluated in terms of clients. And I do the same, to earn some
answer to needs or a cost/benefit ratio, but money these days. There are more and
rather according to criteria of ‘technical more of us doing it, freelancers who have
beauty’, challenge, and wit. We will refer found Spip, and who have understood
to this trajectory as the ‘technological fun’ that it is a good tool”.
approach. The fact that Spip has been considered
from the onset as a professional tool
A business-oriented professionalism designed to be proposed to clients, leads
Finally, for a third group of participants, them to develop arguments indicating the
participation in Spip is not linked to a merits, specificities and qualities of the
practical interest deriving from activist software and to justify their specialization
activities, nor from a taste for technological in that niche, as for example Damien
challenges, but is more closely associated puts it: “one very important thing is that
with their professional trajectory. More Spip is a very good product. It provides
precisely, Spip is a resource to develop excellent opportunities to develop a
their professional and commercial client base”. In that context, participation
activities — these people are usually in the project, whether it involves
freelancers. In this case, the objective helping users, proposing contributions,
pursued is very concretely to develop an discussing features, correcting bugs,
economic model that allows them to bank is motivated by a will to achieve a fine
on their software knowledge with clients grasp of the software and its specificities,
while participating in the development its features and its essential flaws. For
of the product. With a marketing degree, them, it is an opportunity to build up and
Rene, a former radio presenter, would sharpen their know-how, to acquire true
like to develop new models of (virtual) professional expertise on the product,
consumption for the cultural industry. and demonstrate their reliability to

44


clients by showing off their competence, the organizational chart of the project.
with the self-interested objective of a The other — building reputations — is
return on investment under the form of more informal and concerns building the
commercial contracts. opinions on which reputations are built.
The diversity of these involvement In both cases, the regulation based on
trajectories clearly demonstrates that the principle of these two differentiations
the most active contributors who have relies on the production of judgements
joined the intermediate circle of the Spip by other participants who take part in
project do not share the same community the exchanges, give their opinion, and
background with the members of the adapt to the stands taken by others.
central core. More specifically, some of This regulation is consequently widely
these regular contributors get close to it, distributed within the group.
while others are indifferent or ignore this
dimension of the project, and still others Recognizing the deserving
keep their distance or are even hostile. Delegation of responsibilities involved an
In fact, these contributors go as far as acknowledgement of efforts and input,
defining their own exchange and activity establishing a value for the contributions
space (pure R&D trials, information where the individual contributors have
exchanges for freelancers, etc.), thus given the best of themselves: “I think it’s
defining their alternative action rules and normal that at a certain point, they tell
producing an autonomous regulation. you: you’re doing a good job, you’re going
to get more to do, to organize things”.
A distributed community regulation Sometimes, it is even perceived as the
based on judgements achievement of an actual position in the
organization of the project, symbolizing
How can commitments that are so even a promotion, “we do that for
dissimilar be put together? A closer free, but that doesn’t mean that there
look at the crossroads between control shouldn’t be any recognition, so we can
and autonomous regulation modes feel we are moving up within this thing”.
is necessary to understand how the These interpretations are criticized by
organized construction of heterogeneity the members of the strategic circle,
takes place. This implies a shift of focus to but they concede that the delegation
the interactions between participants. In of responsibilities is appropriated as a
this perspective, the difference between powerful recognition marker, to signify a
the statutes and the legitimacies conferred change of status, a sort of ennoblement:
to the contributors appeared as processes “for people, it’s a bit like a lollipop, it’s
shedding a revealing light on the creation more than a reward, it’s like being dubbed
and transformation of shared rules. a knight. It’s not really our mentality, but
Our observations of the social it is perceived as such”. In a context of
exchanges developed within this project, activity where exclusion or eviction is
through online exchanges on forums not an option since one of the levers for
and on IRC, but also during group success resides in the capacity to attract
meetings helped us identify two distinct and enrol a large number of contributors,
mechanisms through which contributors these forms of promotion appear as one
are differentiated: one — recognizing the of the few possible positive sanctions
deserving — is involved in the distribution available.
of the roles associated with positions in

45


Rewards are the consequence of explicit agreement to the principles of ‘the
significant contributions, which means Independent Web Manifesto’. This does
that they combine several qualities: they not imply involvement or participation
correspond to major efforts that alleviate in activist or political organizations,
the core member’s workload, they involve but it does require the expression of
a significant investment in terms of orientations in terms of values justifying
time, and they occur over a sufficiently the participation in the project.
large period of time. These qualities are Recognition through values is not
continuous characteristics, so that their always expressed explicitly, but it is
identification requires an activity of materialized by the will to better know
assessment and evaluation. But estimates the contributors who seem to be reliable
can be erroneous: “what matters for us through their production. Informal or
really is the investment in terms of time. private contacts are then organized
We watch, we observe, we spot […] but (telephone conversation, direct meeting,
it is a delicate matter to judge someone’s lunch, etc.) in order to evaluate — or rather
reliability, since you’ll have people who to check — several values behind the
will do a great job, and then when they involvement: “someone who does such a
become administrator, they no longer do job can’t be a freebie, can’t be a dangerous
anything, they feel like they have made freak either. We know lots of cool people,
it”. but you can’t count on them for big
So, beyond the quality of the jobs […] So then, we try to have lunch
contributions, it is the reliability of the together, talk it over, to get to know them
contributor that becomes the subject of better, you know”. This second test, after
assessments and that constitutes pertinent the contribution criteria, is all the more
or even decisive information for the determinant when the responsibilities
transfer of responsibility. But what does to be delegated are important and bring
this reliability involve? It is related to the people closer to the core. They also
position taken towards the project, which discriminate between the involvements
can take two quite distinct and widely rooted in trajectories, similar to those we
independent forms. The first is linked refer to as politico-technological activist
to participation and production, to the action.
capacity to materialize contributions or However, important responsibilities
finalize projects that require persistence. are also conferred to contributors who
In this context, reliability means meeting justify their participation by their taste
one’s commitments, even implicit, and for computer technology rather than
being autonomous enough to produce by political or ethical values. These are
tangible contributions. It is the stability individuals whose trajectory is related to
of the involvement, assessed in an action- the ‘technological fun’ approach, but who
oriented framework, which is at play here. slowly have shown signs of socialization
The second dimension involves the sense and adhesion, for example by taking part
of commitment, and no longer its result. in non-technical discussions (during
It refers to the compliance to the spirit of meetings with contributors or on IRC
the project — rather than to its production channels). More generally, the most
— which rested on clearly stated political technically competent contributors
colour and ideological identity. Reliability benefit from extra consideration, since
here is expressed in terms of ideological their production is precious, even if the
affinities, particularly concerning the sense of their involvement is unclear.

46


They are granted positions in which they contributors while benefiting from their
can exert their creativity. However, they contribution.
are not on a promotional track. Instead, What characterizes this type of project
they reveal a horizontal work division: is that the social control here is widely
some mostly technical spaces are distributed between the members and
dedicated to them. They are thus subject is not generated by a powerful strategic
to specific processes of recognition and circle being able to sanction, ban, or limit
valorisation. the intervention of deviant individuals.
Here, this process is collective, and
Building reputations above all extremely dispersed. This
Another mechanism of differential regulation is strongly integrated into
involvement valorisation is based on a ordinary exchanges, as if embedded in
discursive production of judgments that the group’s life, and is thus all the more
tends to control deviant individuals. It effective. Continuous observation of
takes the form of various types of social these interactions has helped us identify
control (reminders of behavioural rules, several mechanisms contributing to this
mocking, sarcastic remarks, etc.), which regulation.
are very widespread within the collective. The first mechanism is based on an
This regulation strongly contributes to explicit reminder of the initial reference
the production and the maintenance of to the project. It is not targeted at any
group cohesion, by expressing connivance type of participants in particular, but it
and complicity between its members, all contributes to the diffusion of legitimate
the while being already the result of this and essential values. Examples are
cohesion. We know that the Spip software plenty. So in 2005, the launch of a new
originated in a project to develop means development space (Spip-zone) provided
of free expression on the Internet. This the opportunity to put the emphasis
objective, political, ethical, or ideological on the original values. Various actors
aim, is included in the product itself, interested by the launch of this new sub-
both in the principles it edicts in order space started to discuss, in parallel, the
to structure the web sites and in its low formalization of a charter, the purpose
requirements in terms of IT skills, which of which was to manage participation
makes it accessible to a wide range of and strongly reaffirm the identity of the
users. It contributes to the construction project. Accordingly, this charter states:
of legitimacy orders that are used as
references for the differential valorisation Let us remind you that Spip is free
of attitudes and behaviours of the software, and that any person who
contributors. Also, the roots in a left-wing uses it can do whatever he wants with
scene, reinforced by the affirmation of a it; however, the participation to the
principle of selflessness, automatically Spip-zone must take place within the
de-valorises any commercial use of the framework of the goals and values
software. In such a cognitive context, the promoted by the initial Minirézo
contributors, whose involvement we refer project, and notably to promote and
to as business-oriented professionalism, defend freedom of speech for all
are out of alignment. Therefore, one of on the Internet, to remain defiant
the stakes of the upkeep of the software towards fi nancial interests, and
identity and the project survival is to respect the identity of each and
to contain the participation of these everyone. This implies an effort to

47


internationalize one’s contributions, Another mechanism for the production
make sure that the language and of opinion is both more collective and
functioning modes chosen are not more personalized: it is driven by a series
sexist, giving priority to the needs of contributors during public exchanges,
of the associative world rather than and it is oriented towards certain explicitly
business needs, etc. This site is not targeted participants. In this context,
a development platform for military instant messaging (IRC) constitutes a
or business-oriented versions of major resource for the diffusion of values
Spip, which would change its nature. and rules of conduct, the production of
Neither is it designed to be used as a judgments and reputations. The targets
communication or advertising media of these exchanges are always those
for consultants. who deviate from the boundaries of the
involvement or those who are suspected of
The objective is explicitly to restrain the straying from the rules. The contributors
intervention of ‘business people’, those concerned are active as computer
whose interest is to ‘bang on their own consultants, and their contributions,
drum’ by multiplying their personal even when they are very solid, are
signatures in all discussion threads. The always interpreted as business strategies
choice of elaborating a charter to regulate rather than selfless contributions to the
the participation to this sub-workspace is collective project. Here, call to order are
both linked to a desire to make an initial less formalized than in the previous case,
selection of the participants (avoiding since regulation is totally embedded in
consultants in search of reputation) and the flow of exchanges and discussions:
to promote practices of other sub-spaces triggered by one of the forum participants
that are worth supporting (awareness in reaction to an opinion expressed or
of internationalization, non-sexism). a proposed initiative, it is relayed and
However, the terms of this charter are amplified by others. Expression styles like
also subject to interpretation: individuals jabs, mockery, or irony are privileged since
adjust their individual practices and they allow incisive reactions while saving,
strategies to work with these norms. to a certain extent, the face of the person
So, some contributors who exert an criticized, in order not to compromise
independent activity around Spip, learn his/her participation to the project.
how to feel the limits that should not The examples are numerous. For
be trespassed, and adopt, for example, instance, Alex, known as IT freelancer,
signature strategies to avoid any reference faced a fierce argument. One of his
to the business side of their activities: technical contributions was strongly
“within the community, some aspects criticized. It consisted of a plug-in to Spip,
were ill-perceived […] as if my behaviour i.e., an optional complementary module
consisted in looking for clients at all costs, implementing advanced typographic
far and wide, non-stop, to dream of clients, features, called the typo bar. The product
to see potential clients everywhere. Thus, code was thought to ‘trap’ the user,
when I understood that the community making it very difficult, once the module
felt bad about it, I shortened my signature is installed, to get back to the initial
in the developers’ group and now I simply status.
sign Damien”.

48


<NeroSR> it’s a trap; it is useless need a lot of abnegation. Which means
<Kriss> an “anti-typo bar” plug-in taking a few hard knocks to the head and
should be developed ;-) still holding on”.
<NeroSR> it’s really stupid to design a ‘Real life’ meetings during which the
thing that gets you trapped members of the group physically meet
<NeroSR> it should be deleted so no each other are another occasion to
one gets caught again develop distributed regulation activities.
<Boggy> it’s a fork, it’s a trap, it’s the These meetings often take different
«Alex trap» forms, from regular meetings organized
<Boggy> Alex: your typo bar, you by city where contributors and new users
can keep it to yourself, you have put discuss their project (the Apéro-Spip),
enough people in trouble already with to annual ‘technical’ meetings, hosting
that thing the main contributors, or project parties
<Carla> Boggy: why do you call it a open to a wide circle of contributors,
fork? sympathizers and ordinary users.
<Boggy> once installed, people are While some of the participants do not
linked to his bar, and thus to him. It know each other beforehand, other than
makes the content of the site fork. through their online nicknames, all have
(Spip IRC channel, February 7, 2007) a reputation based on their contributions
(one is known as the person who re-wrote
Alex’s answering strategy consisted this part of the software, translated the
in justifying the code produced by documentation into this language, or
technical difficulties. The others retorted worked for a questionable client), or from
in unison that “you should not confuse the opinions they have expressed on the
requirements with techniques”, and to forums (this is the one who reacted most
“rewrite the whole thing, obviously”. This vigorously against that other participant,
argument resumed after Alex posted a that one animated the debate on that
tasteless comment with homophobic subject). These meetings then become
innuendos, as a reply to a request for opportunities to reinforce connivance
technical help on the user’s list. Reactions and rejection, and thus to support
were strong, condemning the comments judgment-based distributed regulation.
as incompatible with the community’s These meetings themselves provide the
values. Parallels were also established occasion to apply these overlapping
with Alex’s positions published on his judgements and therefore constitute
personal site. On the IRC channel, other significant regulation spaces, as indicated
participants again started to criticize by the observation notes taken during a
his contributions, and make fun of his so-called technical meeting. It shows that
user-trapping strategy. Aspirin’s sardonic interactions are created to reinforce the
comment was: “apparently it’s not easy sharing of views and interpretations, to
to make big money with the typo bar”. generate communion in one single vision
In other words, beyond the expression of of the collective project:
technical difficulties, it is a condemnation
of the commercial strategy of making We were sitting around a table during
users captive. This leads Alex to testify, a Spip workshop. The table was
during an interview, “this taught me a U-shaped; the speaker displayed
first lesson, or rather, a conclusion: to the results of his work and notes
participate in the Spip community, you comments on the whiteboard. The vast

49


majority of the 30-odd participants place in spaces that are visited, at least
were connected to the project’s potentially, by all participants: everyone’s
IRC channel through their laptops, contribution to the development of the
while listening to the presentation. product, investment in the collective
At a certain point, muffled laughter action, as well as points of view are
was heard. My neighbour showed converted into value and legitimacy, to the
me a picture of a dead, squashed extent that they are readable, perceptible,
squirrel [the squirrel is the symbol public. Consequently, all the participants
of the Spip project]. He then showed contribute to the production of these
me the content of the attached IRC rules, either explicitly by intervening in
message saying “Figo, can you show forums and IRC or during one-on-one
this to your neighbour, it’s the Agora meetings, or implicitly by maintaining
logo”. This muffled laughter and the the consensus on legitimacy or status
accompanying glances pointed to of one or the other participants. The
an individual present in the room, meaning of these commitments is also a
sitting next to Figo. He was the collective production since they interact
representative of the Agora project, with the values associated with the
an aborted attempt for a Spip fork. He collective action, and since it is subject
came to the meeting to try to favour to the perceptions, interpretations
a merge of the contributions of the and judgments produced by the other
two projects. He was unaware that participants.
he was being made fun of by almost
the entire room. (Spip ‘coding party’, Conclusions
Lille, France, March 2006).
The in-depth ethnography of the Spip
Regulation by and within the interactions project indicates a multiplicity of
between participants takes multiple and mechanisms regulating collective action
ever-renewed forms, but is based on a that we labelled with three terms: control,
discursive production that leads to the autonomous and distributed. Beyond
establishment of norms, by stigmatizing this case study, this diversity is probably
specific behaviours, by reinforcing typical of medium-sized communities,
socialization, and in some extreme cases, since they face permanent uncertainty
by rejecting any individual who attempts regarding the quality of the participants
to ignore the collective ban. It is mainly and the reliability of their commitments
based on two types of proofs according to (Stewart, 2005), and lack adequate
the principle of contributor differentiation resources to define routines and stabilize
and legitimacy: the contribution as proof interactions. In contrast with the most
revealing competence, both technical and highly reputed projects with a strong
managerial, and the proven signification power of attraction, they cannot rely
revealing their orientations, in terms of mainly on codified control regulation
both value and ideology. These proofs are tools without the risk of provoking the
powerful mechanisms to grant recognition desertion of many participants. On the
and legitimacy to the contributors. other hand, unlike the smaller-scale
This regulation is continuous, since projects supported by small affinity-
it is instilled within the exchanges based communities, they cannot rely only
and activities which make the project on the autonomous regulations rooted
progress. It is also public since it takes in the commitments of the participants

50


alone, because it could result in the does not mean that the rule-making
disintegration of the community. power is distributed equally among
We were able to establish that these two the participants — our observations
types of regulation are not contradictory, have clearly ruled out this eventuality
but instead reinforce each other. Close — but that it is dispersed throughout the
and centralized control exerted on group. It also means that it is adapted
software development guarantees — and according to vague criteria regarding the
that is actually the explicit objective — its forms of presence of each participant
coherence over time, without which the in the interactions. This presence can
success in terms of distribution and use is be assessed, depending on the case, in
impossible or short-lived. This regulation terms of number of contributions, time
based on a more or less complex and dedicated to the project, legitimacy of the
codified hierarchical structure is observed interventions, accumulated status — all
in many free software communities various ingredients that can be subject
(West, 2003; Lakhani & von Hippel, 2003; to multiple interpretations, but on which
Lee & Cole, 2003). Our contribution is the reputation of each participant is
to show that they do not constitute a based, as well as his symbolic position
constraint for the participants: it rather within the group.
appears as a guarantee that their efforts These results coincide with other
will not be in vain, but instead that they works that have examined the hybrid
will be rewarded by the success of the and entangled nature of classifying the
product and of the project. Whether structuring of productive organizations
Spip contributors are independent (market, hierarchy or network) (Powell,
web supporters, computer technology 1990) or of free software production
enthusiasts, or consultants looking for (Demil & Lecocq, 2006). The ethnographic
a market, they all share, beyond the approach that we chose underlined the
diversity of their commitments and their interdependence between the three
motivations to act, a strong interest in the regulation modes: they acted as a system
success of the project. The centralized and it is their hybridization that supports
control on the project constitutes a the development of the Spip community.
defence of this interest since it guarantees First of all, the control regulation, focused
the coherence of the result. on the software produced collectively, is
The combination between these two vital in order to avoid the dispersion of
classical forms of regulation is necessary contributions or forking. Autonomous
in order to manage the irreducible tension regulation is necessary to allow the
between unity and diversity, coherence integration of new participants who
and abundance. But this combination is contribute to the success of the common
not sufficient since the interdependence action without sharing the values and
between control regulation and the founding experiences, and to allow
autonomous regulation does not cancel initiative taking, which is an essential
out the tensions and the contradictions element of the vitality of collective
rooted in the double constraint of result activities. Finally, distributed regulation
coherence and significant heterogeneity ensures an equilibrium between
of the contributors. We have introduced opposed or even conflicting dynamics
a third, original form of regulation of and guarantees that none of the two
the community and its activity, which other regulation forms wins out over the
we called distributed regulation. This other, neither formalizing and rigidifying

51


the organization, nor dispersing and Crowston, Kevin & James Howison (2005)
diluting it. It represents a ﬂexible form of ‘The social structure of free and open
production and implementation of social source software development’, First
rules, which tend to delimit the attitudes Monday 10 (2).
and behaviours acceptable for the group. Dalle, Jean-Michel & Nicolas Jullien
It is therefore a vector of social control, (2003) ‘Libre’ software: Turning fads
diffuse but nevertheless effective, since the into institutions?’, Research Policy 32
exchanges and interactions take place in (1): 1-11.
public or semi-public spaces (the forums, De Terssac, Gilbert (eds) (2003) La
virtual or not). In that sense, the attention Théorie de la Régulation Sociale de J.D.
brought to the situations in which rules Reynaud (Paris: La Découverte).
are created and transformed is a path that Demazière, Didier & Claude Dubar (1997)
deserves deeper analysis, by developing Analyser les Entretiens Biographiques.
methods to observe the exchanges and L’exemple des récits d’insertion (Paris:
the functioning of these ‘communities’, Nathan).
derived from anthropologic work. Demazière, Didier, François Horn &
Marc Zune (2007) ‘Des relations
References de travail sans règles ? L’énigme de
la production des logiciels libres’,
Atkinson, Glen & Mike Reed (1992) ‘The Sociétés contemporaines 66(02):
individual in a going concern’, Journal 101-125.
of Economic Issues 26 (2): 469-476. Demil, Benoît & Xavier Lecocq (2006)
Auray, Nicolas (2004) ‘La régulation ‘Neither market nor hierarchy or
de la connaissance : arbitrage sur la network: the emergence of bazaar
taille et gestion aux frontières dans gouvernance’, Organization Studies
la communauté Debian’, Revue 27(10): 1447-1466.
d’économie politique 113: 74-99. Franke, Nikolaus & Eric von Hippel (2003)
Baym, Nancy (1995) ‘The emergence of ‘Satisfying heterogeneous user needs
community in computer-mediated via innovation toolkits: The case of
communication’, in S. Jones (ed) Apache security software’, Research
Cybersociety: Computer-mediated Policy 32(7): 1199-1215.
Communication and Community Garcia, Juan Mateos & Eduard
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage): 138-163. Steinmueller (2003) ‘The open source
Bitzer, Jurgen & Philipp Schröder (2005) way of working: A new paradigm for
‘Bug-ﬁxing and code-writing: the the division of labour in software
private provision of open source development?’, SPRU Electronic
software’, Information Economics and Working Papers Series (92).
Policy 17 (3): 389-406. Gensollen, Michel (2007) ‘Information
Blumer, Herbert (1969) Symbolic goods and online communities’, in E.
Interactionism: Perspective and Brousseau & N. Curien (eds) Internet
Method (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- and Digital Economics (New York:
Hall). Cambridge University Press).
Commons, John (1961) Institutional Ghosh, Rishab, Ruedigger Glott,
Economics: Its Place in Political Bernhard Krieger, & Gregorio Robles
Economy (Madison: The University of (2002) The Free/Libre and F/OSS
Wisconsin Press). Software Developers Survey and Study
— FLOSS Final Report (University of
Maastricht).

52


Hertel, Guido, Sven Niednet & Stefanie McKelvey, Maureen (2001) ‘The economic
Herrmann (2003) ‘Motivation of dynamics of software: three competing
software developers in Open Source business models exempliﬁed through
projects: an Internet-based survey Microsoft, Netscape and Linux’,
of contributors to the Linux kernel’, Economics of Innovation and New
Research policy 32(7): 1159-1177. Technology 10(2-3): 199-236.
Himanen, Pekka, Linus Torvalds & Manuel Moon, Jae Yun & Lee Sproull (2002)
Castells (2001) The Hacker Ethic (New ‘Essence of distributed work: The
York: Random House). case of the Linux kernel’, in P Hinds
.
Hine, Christine (2000)Virtual Ethnography & S. Kiesler (eds) Distributed Work
(London: Sage). (Cambridge: MIT Press): 381-404.
Holtgrewe, Ursula & Raymund Werle O’Mahony, Siobhan (2003) ‘Guarding the
(2001) ‘De-commodifying software? commons: how community managed
Open source software between business software projects protect their work’,
strategy and social movement’, Science Research Policy 32(7): 1179-1198.
Studies 14(2): 43-65. Ostrom, Elinor (1990) Governing
Horn, François (2004) L’Économie du the Commons: The evolution of
Logiciel (Paris: La Découverte). institutions for collective action (New
Kollock, Peter & Marc Smith (1996) York: Cambridge University Press).
‘Managing the virtual commons: Paradeise, Catherine (1989) ‘Autour des
Cooperation and conﬂict in computer règles du jeu’, Cahiers de recherche
communities’, in S. Herring (eds) (Lyon: GLYSI).
Computer-Mediated Communication: Powell, Walter (1990) ‘Neither market
Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural nor hierarchy: Network forms of
Perspectives (Amsterdam: John organization’, in B. Staw & L.L.
Benjamins): 109-128. Cummings (eds) Research in
Kunda, Gideon (1992) Engineering Organizational Behaviour 12: 295-336.
Culture: Control and Commitment in a Raymond, Eric (1999) The Cathedral &
High Tech Corporation (Philadelphia: The Bazaar (Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly).
Temple University Press). Reynaud, Jean-Daniel (1988) ‘Les
Lakhani, Karim & Eric von Hippel (2003) régulations dans les organisations:
‘How open source software works: régulation de contrôle et régulation
‘Free’ user-to-user assistance’, Research autonome’, Revue française de
Policy 32(6): 923-943. sociologie 29(1): 5-18.
Lee, Gwendolyn & Robert Cole (2003) Stewart, Daniel (2005) ‘Social status in an
‘From a form-based to a community- open-source community’, American
based model of knowledge creation: the Sociological Review 70(5): 823-842.
case of the Linux kernel development’, Strauss, Anselm & Juliet Corbin (1990)
Organization Science 14(6): 603-649. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Lerner, Josh & Jean Tirole (2002) ‘Some Grounded Theory procedures and
simple economics of open source’, techniques (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
Journal of Industrial Economics 50(2): von Hippel, Eric & Georg von Krogh (2003)
197-234. ‘Open source software and the ‘private-
Lin, Yuwei (2005) ‘The future of sociology collective’ innovation model: Issues for
of Floss’, First Monday, Special Issue organization science’, Organization
#2. Science 14(2): 209-223.

53


von Krogh, Georg & Eric von Hippel (2003) Didier Demazière
‘Editorial : Special issue on open source Laboratoire Printemps, CNRS
software development’, Research Policy University of Versailles
32(7): 1149-1157. Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Wenger, Etienne (1998) Communities
of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge François Horn
University Press). CLERSE - CNRS, University of Lille III
West, Joel (2003) ‘How open is open
enough? Melding proprietary and Marc Zune
open-source platform strategies’, FNRS - Free University of Brussels &
Research Policy 32(7): 1259-1285. Management Centre, Queen Mary -
University of London
mzune@ulb.ac.be

54

Free software community functioning

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Free software community functioning (20)

More from Rayna Stamboliyska (9)

Free software community functioning