Talk is silver, code is gold? Contribution beyond source code in Free/Libre Open Source Software communities

Talk is silver, code is gold? Contribution
beyond source code in Free/Libre Open Source
Software communities
David Rozas
Supervised by Prof. Nigel Gilbert and Dr Paul Hodkinson
This work was partially supported by the Framework
programme FP7-ICT-2013-10 of the European Commission through
project P2Pvalue (grant no.: 610961).
Sociology PGR Day Conference, Guildford – 27.04.2016www.p2pvalue.eu

Outline
●
Introduction: Drupal as a Commons-Based Peer
Production community
●
Research questions & methodology
●
Findings
●
Discussion
●
Conclusion
@drozas

What is Free Software?
●
Software which allows its
use, copy, study and
modification in any way
●
Huge increment in adoption
and production
●
Not only about the
software: new ways of
producing it (Raymond, 2001)
Deshpande and Riehle (2008)
@drozas

What is Drupal?
●
Free software content management framework, started personal project of a student
(2001)
●
Powering +2% websites worldwide (W3Techs, 2014): whitehouse.gov, mtv.co.uk, data.gov.uk, ...
●
A community project: “you come for
the software, you stay for the community”
●
Currently +1M users registered at Drupal.org,
+30k code contributors (Drupal.org, 2014a)
●
Hundreds of local F2F events, dozens of camps and con
s in 4 continents (Drupal.org, 2014b)
@drozas

What is Commons-Based Peer Production?
●
Spreading to diverse areas: open science, open
agriculture, Peer-to-peer urbanism, etc. (Fuster Morell
et al., 2014). See http://directory.p2pvalue.eu &
http://directori.p2pvalue.eu
●
A new model of socio-economic production in which
groups of loosely connected individuals cooperate with
each other to produce meaningful products without a
traditional hierarchical organisation (Benkler, 2006)
@drozas

What are the commons?
●
The commons: as a resource or good shared by a group of people that
may be subject to social dilemmas, such as over-exploitation or free-
riding. (Hess & E. Ostrom, 2007)
●
Classification of goods according to:
●
Excludability: feasible to prevent its access to it
●
Rivalry: its use or consumption prevents or affects
the consumption by others
V. Ostrom and E. Ostrom (1999)
@drozas

What are the commons?
●
Furthermore, some of these goods are anti-rival: the more people use
them, the more utility each person receives (e.g.: Free software).
Weber (2004)
●
One more dimension, the scope of the ownership: “Those goods that
belong to everyone and no one at the same time, therefore not
following the rules of the market”
Lafuente et al. (2007)
@drozas

The Drupal goods as a commons
●
Anti-rival: its use by a person increases the value for other users
●
Non-excludable: accessibility is protected as part of the licenses applied for
the code, the contents created in the community, etc.
●
Global: the ownership does not belong
to any individual or state, as protected by the
licenses chosen (exception: the trademark)
@drozas

Drupal community as a CBPP community
●
Ongoing discussion on the differences between CBPP, peer production or delimitation criteria.
●
Drupal as a community whose mode of production (Fuster Morell et al., 2014) is:
●
Collaborative process
●
Peer-based: different levels of structure depending on the process, but not mainly based on
contractual obligations nor coercion
●
Commons-process: process driven by the general interest, results in openness of the
resources
●
Favouring reproducibility: via Free Software or Creative Commons licenses, exchange of
practices, etc.
@drozas

Contribution activities as unit of analysis
●
Understand processes and dynamics: how do these communities scale
up their self-organisational processes?
●
Previous studies looked at individuals or at the whole community (e.g.:
motivations to contribute, structure of the community, etc.). Huang, Le &
Panchal (2011), Sims, J. P. (2013), Nordin (2014)
●
Looking at contribution activities as unit of analysis,drawing on Activity
Theory (Engeström, 1987) as a framework
●
Implies to understand deeply what contribution means: stage 1
@drozas

Contribution
●
A blurred notion: meanings constantly evolving as part of negotiation
processes between the participants
●
Critical in CBPP communities focussed on digital commons: economy of
contribution [not based on direct reciprocity]
rather than gift economy [based on direct
reciprocity] (Wittel, 2013)
@drozas

Contribution: “code-centrism”
●
“Code-centrism”:
●
In FLOSS literature: typically looking at source code as main notion of
contribution
●
In FLOSS communities: “Talk is silver, code is gold”
●
What about other contributions? Affective labour as the “lifeblood” of
the commons (Bollier, 2014): immaterial labour present in social interaction
which creates or modifies emotional experiences (Hardt, 1999)
@drozas

Research questions
●
RQ1: What type of activities are perceived as contributions in the Drupal
community? Do the “official” meanings match the ones of the members of the
community?
●
RQ2: How are the identified activities represented in the main platform of
collaboration in an individual level?
●
RQ3: Can some of these activities be understood as sources of affective labour
and what relevance do they have? Are there any differences on how they are
perceived between members with different degrees of experience?
@drozas

Data and methods
●
Ethnographic methodological approach: online and offline
●
Triangulation of data collection methods:
- Participant observation (1.5 years): IRC, drupal.org, 26 events (44 days), etc.
- Documentary analysis: Drupal Planet as “native” starting point. 3 years archive
(+6K documents). See http://www.davidrozas.com/lab/drupal_planet_archive.php
- Semi-structured qualitative interviews (11). +1100' recorded
●
Analysis supported by CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS)
@drozas

Findings: Contribution beyond source code (RQ1)
“[...]organise talks, meetups or just hang out
with Drupalistas to drink some beers and
have a talk, are also very important
activities, and very positive for the
community.”
Drupal developer, M, 7 years. Original reply in Spanish.
@drozas

●
Two main types emerged, according to the
focus of action:
●
“Object-oriented”: source code,
documentation, translation, etc.
●
“Community-oriented”: usage & support, online
community management, training & mentoring,
organisation & participation in F2F events, etc.
●
Suggestive, not exhaustive, list
@drozas

●
Analysis of main platform shows
that “community-oriented”
ones are less visible
●
From them, this affects
especially local/regional F2F
events
@drozas

●
Offer empirical evidence of the need of widening our
understanding of contribution activities
●
This lack of visibility is also reflected in the main platform of
collaboration
@drozas

Findings: Contributions in user profiles (RQ2)
●
Profiles are key elements in the
generation of perceptions by other
users (Marlow, Dabbish & Herbsleb,
2013), significant role in the process
of status attainment in FLOSS
communities (Stewart, 2005)
@drozas

●
Inequality in the representation of “community-oriented”
activities
●
Affecting specially to “organisation and participation in
local/regional F2F events”
●
Some Drupalistas try to overcome these limitations
@drozas

Examples of “object-oriented” contributions reflected in the profiles
@drozas

Examples (the few) of “community-oriented” contributions reflected in the profiles
(after the study)
@drozas

Use of “open fields” to try to overcome these limitations
@drozas

●
Descriptive account of how identified activities are represented
●
Empirical evidence of the uneven representation of some
contribution activities, affecting specially the “community-
oriented” category
@drozas

Findings: Role of affective labour (RQ3)
●
Analysis focussed on organisation and participation in F2F
events – most clear example of affective labour (immaterial,
creation and modification of emotional experiences)
●
These contribution activities play a relevant role in the
sustainability of the community: “come for the software, stay
for the community”
@drozas

“[...]indeed, the fact of attending these meetups [referring to local events], it
was really good. Because you realise there are people behind the source
code, right? There are people behind the modules. And you meet people
that can tell you this kind of personal stories.[...] And then, it stops being
something anonymous, it becomes something yours.”
Drupal developer and devop, M, 1.5 years. Original reply in Spanish.
● Drupal becomes a community, avoid barriers, increases the will for
reciprocity, etc.
● Also very relevant for experienced Drupalistas (e.g. avoid to burnout)
@drozas

“Because the community is growing, then you have less of a sense of
community. But I think the solution to that is to have smaller local
communities.
So, you know, as the worldwide community grows, then you start finding,
like whereas before it might have been 50 people worldwide, now you have
like 50 people in your part of London, or wherever.”
Drupal themer and developer, M, 11 years.
● Local activities help to scale up the sense of community,
as it grows
@drozas

●
Existence and relevance of affective labour
●
Different types of emotional experiences which foster
collaboration. Vary according to degree of experience
●
Not only understood as a type of contribution; not only
unequally represented; they are key for sustainability
@drozas

Discussion
●
Role of F2F in FLOSS and hacker culture (Coleman, 2013, p. 73), having
“affective, moral, economic and political dimensions”
●
Framing them as contributions, and empirical evidence of lack of
visibility in main platform of collaboration
●
Participation “transforms the local subjectivities” of Drupalistas, as in non-
digital domain: community-based forest in Odisha (Singh, 2013).Shaping
subjectivity: becoming a “commoner” through “commoning”
@drozas

Discussion
●
Not only socio-cultural reasons:
●
Need of exploring new dimensions of value in CBPP
communities (e.g. P2Pvalue, Open Value Network)
●
Incorporate them in socio-technical systems in concise,
useful and decentralised ways [e.g. Sabir, (De Filippi, P. &
Hassan, S. (2014))]
@drozas

Conclusion
●
Broaden our understanding of contribution activities beyond
“object-centric” ones
●
Lack of visibility of “community-oriented” ones and its relevance
●
Keep on exploring conceptualisation
and incorporation of value in
CBPP communities
Working paper: http://bit.ly/1LiRKX5
@drozas

References
●
Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA, USA: O’Reilly.
●
Deshpande, A. & Riehle, D. (2008). The total growth of open source. In Open Source Development, Communities and Quality (pp. 197–209). Springer.
●
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
●
Fuster Morell, M. et al. (2014). Theoretical synthesis: Final theoretical synthesis of WP1, including research reports on data collection.
http://www.p2pvalue.eu/sites/default/files/u28/D12_31July_TheoreticalFindingsA%20%281%29.pdf
●
Hess, C. & Ostrom, E. (2007). Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons.
●
Ostrom, V. & Ostrom, E. (1999). Public goods and public choices. In Polycentricity and local public economies. readings from the workshop in political theory
and policy analysis (pp. 75–105). Ed. Michael McGinnis, Ann Arbor.-University of Michigan Press.
●
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge Univ Press.
●
Lafuente, A. et al. (2007). Los cuatro entornos del procomún.
●
W3Techs (2014). Usage of content management systems for websites. http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management/all
●
Drupal.org (2014a). https://www.drupal.org/
●
Drupal.org (2014b). Drupal upcoming events. https://groups.drupal.org/events
●
Huang, Le & Panchal. (2011). Analysis of the structure and evolution of an open-source community.
●
Sims, J. P. (2013). Interactive engagement with an open source community : a study of the relationships between organizations and an open source.
●
Nordin, D. (2014). Motivation and Collaboration in an Open Source Project: A Qualitative Study of the Drupal Community. (Master’s thesis, Bentley University).
●
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
●
Wittel, A. (2013). Counter-commodification: The economy of contribution in the digital commons. Culture and Organization, 19 (4), 325, 327–328.
●
Bollier, D. (2014). Affective Labor as the Lifeblood of a Commons. Retrieved from http://www.bollier.org/blog/affective-labor-lifeblood-commons
●
Hardt, M. (1999). Affective labor. Boundary 2, 26 (2), 89–100.
●
Marlow, J., Dabbish, L. & Herbsleb, J. (2013). Impression Formation in Online Peer Production: Activity Traces and Personal Profiles in Github. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 117–128). CSCW ’13. San Antonio, Texas, USA: ACM.
doi:10.1145/2441776.2441792
@drozas

References
●
Stewart, D. (2005, October). Social Status in an Open-Source Community. American Sociological Review, 70 (5), 823–842. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218806561?accountid=17256
●
Coleman, E. G. (2013). Coding freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://gabriellacoleman.org/Coleman- Coding-
Freedom.pdf
●
Singh, N. M. (2013, June). The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Geoforum, 47,
189–198. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.010
●
De Filippi, P. & Hassan, S. (2014). Measuring value in the commons-based ecosystem: bridging the gap between the commons and the market. Journal of Institutional
and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 39, 5.
●
Images:
●
http://fossbuzz.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AffiliateLogosFinal_1.png
●
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Tux.png
●
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png
●
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Amsterdam_Fab_Lab_at_The_Waag_Society.JPG
●
http://farmhack.net/sites/default/files/The%20Garlic%20Master%20001_0.JPG
●
https://rafaeldemiguel.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/about_new.jpg
●
http://www.colaborabora.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2011/10/CBB_diapoPROCOMUN1.jpg
●
https://www.drupal.org/files/druplicon.large_.png
●
http://www.gsati.com/sites/default/files/Drupal!.jpg
●
http://blog.101financial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Making-A-Contribution-To-Society.png
●
https://groups.drupal.org/files/drupalbeers.png
●
Screenshot from https://drupal.org/contribute , retrieved 11th November 2014
●
Screenshot from https://drupal.org/u/drozas , retrieved 24th March 2015 (not available unless logged in)
●
Screenshot from https://www.drupal.org/u/webchick , retrieved 5th November 2014
●
Screenshot from https://groups.drupal.org/user/8713 , retrieved 5th November 2014.
●
Screenshot from https://www.drupal.org/user/740628/edit/Drupal , retrieved 22nd October 2014 (not available unless logged in)
●
Screenshot from https://www.drupal.org/u/lewisnyman , retrieved 5th November 2014
●
Screenshot from https://www.drupal.org/u/lewisnyman , retrieved 14th July 2015
●
Screenshot from https://www.drupal.org/u/chandeepkhosa , retrieved 5th November 2014
●
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/537cad0be4b02cb9fe04985f/t/55c0e439e4b071c15ab3cedd/1438704698454/Writing.jpg
@drozas

Thanks!
Danke!
¡Gràcies!
¡Gracias!
Any questions/feedback?
Ευχαριστώ!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 Unported License
excerpt if otherwise noted.
To view a copy of this license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
+info|contact:
●
@drozas
●
www.davidrozas.com || drozas@surrey.ac.uk
[...]
@drozas

Talk is silver, code is gold? Contribution beyond source code in Free/Libre Open Source Software communities

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Talk is silver, code is gold? Contribution beyond source code in Free/Libre Open Source Software communities (20)

More from David Rozas (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Talk is silver, code is gold? Contribution beyond source code in Free/Libre Open Source Software communities