skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

The Signals that Potential Contributors Look for When Choosing Open-source Projects

Published:07 November 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

While open-source software has become ubiquitous, its sustainability is in question: without a constant supply of contributor effort, open-source projects are at risk. While prior work has extensively studied the motivations of open-source contributors in general, relatively little is known about how people choose which project to contribute to, beyond personal interest. This question is especially relevant in transparent social coding environments like GitHub, where visible cues on personal profile and repository pages, known as signals, are known to impact impression formation and decision making. In this paper, we report on a mixed-methods empirical study of the signals that influence the contributors' decision to join a GitHub project. We first interviewed 15 GitHub contributors about their project evaluation processes and identified the important signals they used, including the structure of the README and the amount of recent activity. Then, we proceeded quantitatively to test out the impact of each signal based on the data of 9,977 GitHub projects. We reveal that many important pieces of information lack easily observable signals, and that some signals may be both attractive and unattractive. Our findings have direct implications for open-source maintainers and the design of social coding environments, e.g., features to be added to facilitate better project searching experience.

References

  1. Wissam Abdallah, Marc Goergen, and Noel O'Sullivan. 2015. Endogeneity: How failure to correct for it can cause wrong inferences and some remedies. British Journal of Management, Vol. 26, 4 (2015), 791--804.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jason Abrevaya, Jerry A Hausman, and Shakeeb Khan. 2010. Testing for causal effects in a generalized regression model with endogenous regressors. Econometrica, Vol. 78, 6 (2010), 2043--2061.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. George A Akerlof. 1978. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. In Uncertainty in Economics. Elsevier, 235--251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. A novel approach for estimating truck factors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Saeideh Bakhshi, Partha Kanuparthy, and David A. Shamma. 2015. Understanding Online Reviews: Funny, Cool or Useful?. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). ACM, 1270--1276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sogol Balali, Igor Steinmacher, Umayal Annamalai, Anita Sarma, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Newcomers' Barriers... Is That All? An Analysis of Mentors' and Newcomers' Barriers in OSS Projects. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andrew Begel, Jan Bosch, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2013. Social networking meets software development: Perspectives from GitHub, MSDN, Stack Exchange, and Topcoder. IEEE Software 1 (2013), 52--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kelly Blincoe, Jyoti Sheoran, Sean Goggins, Eva Petakovic, and Daniela Damian. 2016. Understanding the popular users: Following, affiliation influence and leadership on GitHub. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 70 (2016), 30--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Richard Blundell and James L Powell. 2003. Endogeneity in nonparametric and semiparametric regression models. Econometric Society Monographs, Vol. 36 (2003), 312--357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Richard W Blundell and James L Powell. 2004. Endogeneity in semiparametric binary response models. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 71, 3 (2004), 655--679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Hudson Borges and Marco Tulio Valente. 2018. What's in a GitHub star? Understanding repository starring practices in a social coding platform. Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 146 (2018), 112--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Jamie Macbeth, Stephann Makri, Laura Beckwith, Irwin Kwan, Anicia Peters, and William Jernigan. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software's gender inclusiveness. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 28, 6 (2016), 760--787.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andrea Capiluppi, Alexander Serebrenik, and Leif Singer. 2013. Assessing technical candidates on the social web. IEEE Software, Vol. 30, 1 (2013), 45--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jailton Coelho and Marco Tulio Valente. 2017. Why modern open source projects fail. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, 186--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jacob Cohen, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G West, and Leona S Aiken. 2013. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences .Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Benjamin C. Collier and Robert Hampshire. 2010. Sending Mixed Signals: Multilevel Reputation Effects in Peer-to-peer Lending Markets. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). ACM, 197--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, and Andrea Wiggins. 2012. Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 44, 2 (2012), 7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). ACM, 1277--1286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Daniel Jurafsky, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2013. A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Vol. 1 (2013), 250--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Dan Jurafsky, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2013. A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Vol. 1. 250--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Judith Donath. 2007. Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, 1 (2007), 231--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Steve Easterbrook, Janice Singer, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Daniela Damian. 2008. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, 285--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Nadia Eghbal. 2016. Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure .Ford Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. K Anders Ericsson and Herbert A Simon. 1980. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, Vol. 87, 3 (1980), 215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. J Alberto Espinosa, Jonathon N Cummings, and Cynthia Pickering. 2011. Time separation, coordination, and performance in technical teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 59, 1 (2011), 91--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. E Michael Foster. 1997. Instrumental variables for logistic regression: an illustration. Social Science Research, Vol. 26, 4 (1997), 487--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Matthieu Foucault, Marc Palyart, Xavier Blanc, Gail C Murphy, and Jean-Rémy Falleri. 2015. Impact of developer turnover on quality in open-source software. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, 829--841.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Felipe Fronchetti, Igor Wiese, Gustavo Pinto, and Igor Steinmacher. 2019. What Attract Newcomers to Onboard on OSS Projects? TL;DR: Popularity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS). Springer, 91--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Daviti Gachechiladze, Filippo Lanubile, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Anger and its direction in collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results Track (ICSE-NIER). IEEE, 11--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Andrew Gelman and Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chris Gibbs, Daniel Guttentag, Ulrike Gretzel, Jym Morton, and Alasdair Goodwill. 2018. Pricing in the sharing economy: a hedonic pricing model applied to Airbnb listings. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 35, 1 (2018), 46--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Georgios Gousios and Diomidis Spinellis. 2012. GHTorrent: GitHub's data from a firehose. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 12--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. William H Greene. 2003. Econometric analysis .Pearson Education India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tim Guilford and Marian Stamp Dawkins. 1991. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 42, 1 (1991), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Zijian Guo and Dylan S Small. 2016. Control function instrumental variable estimation of nonlinear causal effect models. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 17, 1 (2016), 3448--3482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Alexander Hars and Shaosong Ou. 2002. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6, 3 (2002), 25--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hideaki Hata, Taiki Todo, Saya Onoue, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2015. Characteristics of sustainable OSS projects: A theoretical and empirical study. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 15--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jerry A Hausman. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1978), 1251--1271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Guido Hertel, Sven Niedner, and Stefanie Herrmann. 2003. Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, Vol. 32, 7 (2003), 1159--1177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Giuseppe Iaffaldano, Igor Steinmacher, Fabio Calefato, Marco Gerosa, and Filippo Lanubile. 2019. Why do developers take breaks from contributing to OSS projects? A preliminary analysis. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Health (SoHeal).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Lawrence R James and B Krishna Singh. 1978. An introduction to the logic, assumptions, and basic analytic procedures of two-stage least squares. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85, 5 (1978), 1104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Corey Jergensen, Anita Sarma, and Patrick Wagstrom. 2011. The onion patch: migration in open source ecosystems. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, 70--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Michael L Johnson, William Crown, Bradley C Martin, Colin R Dormuth, and Uwe Siebert. 2009. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part III. Value in Health, Vol. 12, 8 (2009), 1062--1073.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Robbert Jongeling, Proshanta Sarkar, Subhajit Datta, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. On negative results when using sentiment analysis tools for software engineering research. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 22, 5 (2017), 2543--2584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Eirini Kalliamvakou, Georgios Gousios, Kelly Blincoe, Leif Singer, Daniel M German, and Daniela Damian. 2014. The promises and perils of mining GitHub. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). ACM, 92--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mikko Ketokivi and Cameron N McIntosh. 2017. Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 52 (2017), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Amna Kirmani and Akshay R Rao. 2000. No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, 2 (2000), 66--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Sandeep Krishnamurthy. 2006. On the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of free/libre/open source (FLOSS) developers. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Vol. 18, 4 (2006), 17--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Karim R Lakhani and Robert G Wolf. 2003. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Technical Report 4425-03. MIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Cliff AC Lampe, Nicole Ellison, and Charles Steinfield. 2007. A familiar Face(book): profile elements as signals in an online social network. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 435--444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Michael J Lee, Bruce Ferwerda, Junghong Choi, Jungpil Hahn, Jae Yun Moon, and Jinwoo Kim. 2013. GitHub developers use rockstars to overcome overflow of news. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 133--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole. 2002. Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 50, 2 (2002), 197--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Bin Lin, Gregorio Robles, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Developer turnover in global, industrial open source projects: Insights from applying survival analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE). IEEE, 66--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Bin Lin, Fiorella Zampetti, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Michele Lanza, and Rocco Oliveto. 2018. Sentiment Analysis for Software Engineering: How Far Can We Go?. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 94--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Georg JP Link and Debora Jeske. 2017. Understanding Organization and Open Source Community Relations through the Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym). ACM, 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Christine M Liu and Judith S Donath. 2006. Urbanhermes: social signaling with electronic fashion. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 885--888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Xiao Ma, Jeffery T. Hancock, Kenneth Lim Mingjie, and Mor Naaman. 2017. Self-Disclosure and Perceived Trustworthiness of Airbnb Host Profiles. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). ACM, 2397--2409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Jennifer Marlow and Laura Dabbish. 2013. Activity traces and signals in software developer recruitment and hiring. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). ACM, 145--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Jennifer Marlow, Laura Dabbish, and Jim Herbsleb. 2013. Impression formation in online peer production: activity traces and personal profiles in GitHub. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). ACM, 117--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Christopher Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2018. Open Source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 1004--1015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Courtney Miller, David Widder, Christian Kastner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Why do People Give Up FLOSSing? A Study of Contributor Disengagement in Open Source. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS). Springer, 116--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Nicole Novielli, Fabio Calefato, and Filippo Lanubile. 2015. The challenges of sentiment detection in the social programmer ecosystem. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Software Engineering (SSE). ACM, 33--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Emily Oster. 2019. Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 37, 2 (2019), 187--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Huilian Sophie Qiu, Alexander Nolte, Anita Brown, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Going Farther Together: The Impact of Social Capital on Sustained Participation in Open Source. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 688--699.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Gregorio Robles and Jesus M Gonzalez-Barahona. 2006. Contributor turnover in libre software projects. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS). Springer, 273--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. N Sadat Shami, Kate Ehrlich, Geri Gay, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2009. Making sense of strangers' expertise from signals in digital artifacts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 69--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Jyoti Sheoran, Kelly Blincoe, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Daniela Damian, and Jordan Ell. 2014. Understanding watchers on GitHub. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). ACM, 336--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Michael Spence. 1973. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87, 3 (1973), 355--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Michael Spence. 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, Vol. 92, 3 (2002), 434--459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). ACM, 1379--1392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Uchoa Conte, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 273--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2014. Attracting, onboarding, and retaining newcomer developers in open source software projects. In Workshop on Global Software Development in a CSCW Perspective .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Igor Steinmacher, Gustavo Pinto, Igor Scaliante Wiese, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2018. Almost there: A study on quasi-contributors in open-source software projects. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 256--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Anselm Strauss and Juliet M Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Joseph V Terza, Anirban Basu, and Paul J Rathouz. 2008. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 27, 3 (2008), 531--543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 24--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Asher Trockman, Shurui Zhou, Christian Kastner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2018. Adding Sparkle to Social Coding: An Empirical Study of Repository Badges in the npm Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 511--522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Marat Valiev, Bogdan Vasilescu, and James Herbsleb. 2018. Ecosystem-Level Determinants of Sustained Activity in Open-Source Projects: A Case Study of the PyPI Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, 644--655.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Bogdan Vasilescu, Vladimir Filkov, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2015a. Perceptions of Diversity on GitHub: A User Survey. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 50--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, Mark G. J. van den Brand, Alexander Serebrenik, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015b. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 3789--3798.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Michael R Veall and Klaus F Zimmermann. 1996. Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 10, 3 (1996), 241--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Kazuhiro Yamashita, Yasutaka Kamei, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Naoyasu Ubayashi. 2016. Magnet or sticky? Measuring project characteristics from the perspective of developer attraction and retention. Journal of Information Processing, Vol. 24, 2 (2016), 339--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Amotz Zahavi. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. Journal of theoretical Biology, Vol. 53, 1 (1975), 205--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Amotz Zahavi and Avishag Zahavi. 1999. The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle .Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Haiyi Zhu, Robert Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). ACM, 407--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Haiyi Zhu, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert E Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2013. Effects of peer feedback on contribution: a field experiment in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 2253--2262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Frances Zlotnick. 2017. GitHub Open Source Survey 2017. http://opensourcesurvey.org/2017/. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.806811Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Signals that Potential Contributors Look for When Choosing Open-source Projects

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 3, Issue CSCW
      November 2019
      5026 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3371885
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 November 2019
      Published in pacmhci Volume 3, Issue CSCW

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader