Identifying Socio-Technical Risks in Open-Source Software for Scholarly Communications: Tools, Metrics, and Opportunities for Libraries to Support Sustainable Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30630Abstract
Objective – In the interest of helping libraries make evidence based decisions about open-source software (OSS), the objective of this research is to establish whether tools that automate the evaluation of OSS project communities could be used specifically on scholarly communications OSS (SC-OSS) projects to provide actionable insights for libraries to guide strategic decision making and corrective interventions.
Methods – Seven OSS project communities were selected for evaluation, chosen from widely used scholarly communications software applications used in Canada for repositories, journal hosting, and archives. While all aspects of OSS projects may be evaluated at the project or network/ecosystem level, addressing the actors, software, or orchestration (Linåker et al., 2022), community evaluation that looks at the interaction patterns between project contributors is the practical focus of this research paper since there are multiple human factors that librarians who may not be software developers can impact. We identified a community analysis tool called csDetector (Almarimi et al., 2021) from the software engineering literature. This tool was chosen based on two main criteria: 1) ability to analyze data from GitHub repositories (the code sharing platform used by all selected SC-OSS projects) and 2) capacity to automatically produce results without manual intervention. Since some of the seven OSS projects were spread across multiple GitHub repositories, a total of 11 datasets from GitHub, each containing three months’ worth of data, were analyzed using csDetector.
Results – The results produced by csDetector are interesting though not without limitations. The tool is complex and requires the user to have software development skills to use it effectively. It lacked sufficient documentation, which made interpreting the results challenging. The analysis from csDetector, which identifies community smells (i.e., types of organizational and social dysfunction within software projects [Tamburri et al, 2015, 2021a]), suggests that these SC-OSS project communities are experiencing knowledge sharing difficulties, weak collaboration practices, or other member interaction dysfunctions that can eventually permanently affect community health. Having a software tool that can take metrics from GitHub and detect community smells is a valuable way to illustrate problems in the project’s community and point the way to remedying dysfunction.
Conclusion – While the OSS community analysis tool csDetector currently presents several hurdles before it can be used, and results generated come with caveats, it can be part of an approach to support evidence based decision-making pertaining to SC-OSS in libraries. The information provided can be worth monitoring (especially social network metrics such as centrality) and their results, particularly for community smells, identify problems that may be addressed by non-developers. Awareness of community smells in OSS can provide a deeper understanding of OSS sustainability as it provides a language to identify suboptimal social dynamics.
Downloads
References
Almarimi, N., Ouni, A., Chouchen, M., & Mkaouer, M. W. (2021). csDetector: An open source tool for community smells detection. In D. Spinellis, G. Gousios, M. Chechik, & M. Di Penta (Eds.), ESEC/FSE 2021: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering,1560–1564. https://doi.org/10.1145/3468264.3473121
Almarimi, N., Ouni, A., Chouchen, M., & Mkaouer, M. W. (2023). Improving the detection of community smells through socio-technical and sentiment analysis. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 35(6), Article e2505. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2505
Almarimi, N., Ouni, A., & Mkaouer, M. W. (2020). Learning to detect community smells in open source software projects. Knowledge-Based Systems, 204, Article 106201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106201
Aman, H., Burhandenny, A. E., Amasaki, S., Yokogawa, T., & Kawahara, M. (2017). A health index of open source projects focusing on Pareto distribution of developer's contribution. The 8th IEEE International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWESEP.2017.14
Andrade, S., & Saraiva, F. (2017). Principled evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in FLOSS communities: A systematic mixed methods maturity model approach. In F. Balaguer, R. Di Cosmo, A. Garrido, F. Kon, G. Robles, & S. Zacchiroli (Eds.), Open source systems: Towards robust practices: 13th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2017, Proceedings, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57735-7
Arp, L. G., & Forbes, M. (2018). It takes a village: Open source software sustainability. LYRASIS. https://itav.lyrasis.org/guidebook/
Askey, D. (2008). We love open source software. No, you can’t have our code. Code4Lib, 5. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/527
Avelino, G., Passos, L., Hora, A., & Valente, M. T. (2016). A novel approach for estimating truck factors. 2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2016.7503718
Baker, S. (2020). Assessing open source journal management software. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0023.101
Barnes, M., Bell, E., Cole, G., Fry, J., Gatti, R., & Stone, G. (2022). WP7 scoping report on archiving and preserving OA monographs (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6725309
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/users/publications/
Bettenburg, N., & Hassan, A. E. (2010). Studying the impact of social structures on software quality. 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 124-133. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2010.46
Betz, S., Nason, M., & Uhl, E. (2023). Library publishing and hosting in Canada - Institutional responses to a 2022 questionnaire (Version 2). Borealis. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/SDFZUO
Bilder, G., Lin, J., & Neylon, C. (2020). The principles of open scholarly infrastructure. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.24343/C34W2H
Breeding, M. (2017). Kuali OLE (defunct). Library Technology Reports, 53(6), 25–26. https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6407/8456
Caballero-Espinosa, E., Carver, J. C., & Stowers, K. (2023). Community smells–the sources of social debt: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 153, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107078
Cánovas Izquierdo, J. L., & Cabot, J. (2022). On the analysis of non-coding roles in open source development. Empirical Software Engineering, 27, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10061-x
CARL Open Repositories Working Group (2022). Inventory of Canadian repository platforms. Federated Research Data Repository. https://doi.org/10.20383/102.0538
Cataldo, M., Herbsleb, J. D., & Carley, K. M. (2008). Socio-technical congruence: A framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414008
Catolino, G., Palomba, F., Tamburri, D. A., Serebrenik, A., & Ferrucci, F. (2020). Refactoring community smells in the wild: The practitioner’s field manual. 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377815.3381380
Çetin, H. A., & Tüzün, E. (2022). Analyzing developer contributions using artifact traceability graphs. Empirical Software Engineering, 27, Article 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10129-2
CHAOSS (n. d.-a). About CHAOSS. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://chaoss.community/about-chaoss/
CHAOSS (n. d. -b). CHAOSS software. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://chaoss.community/software/
CHAOSS (n. d.-c). Metrics and metrics models. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://chaoss.community/kb-metrics-and-metrics-models/
CHAOSS (n. d.-d). Practitioner guide: Introduction – things to think about when interpreting metrics. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://chaoss.community/practitioner-guide-introduction/
CHAOSS (n. d.-e). Project engagement. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://chaoss.community/kb/metrics-model-project-engagement/
Chudnov, D. (1999). Open source software: The future of library systems? Library Journal, 124(13), 40–43.
Collister, L. (2023, December 8). Introducing Infra Finder. Invest in Open Infrastructure. Retrieved on April 3, 2024, from https://investinopen.org/blog/blog-introducing-infra-finder/
Colt, J. (2023). An introduction to using metrics to assess the health and sustainability of library open source software projects. Code4Lib, 57. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/17514
Conway, M. E. (1968). How do committees invent? Datamation, 14(5), 28–31.
Corrado, E. M. (2005). The importance of open access, open source, and open standards for libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 42. https://doi.org/10.5062/F42F7KD8
Corrado, E. M. (2021). Revisiting the importance of open access, open source, and open standards for libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 38(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2021.1934312
Corrado, E. M. (2023). Proprietary and open source software systems in libraries: A few considerations. Technical Services Quarterly, 40(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2023.2226434
Cosentino, V., Izquierdo, J. L. C., & Cabot, J. (2015). Assessing the bus factor of Git repositories. 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2015.7081864
Cousijn, H., Hendricks, G., & Meadows, A. (2021). Why openness makes research infrastructure resilient. Learned Publishing, 34(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1361
De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A., & Orsi, L. (2011). The governance of open source software communities: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Law and Governance, 6(1), 1–18. https://vulj.vu.edu.au/index.php/jbsge/article/view/195/
De Stefano, M., Iannone, E., Pecorelli, F., & Tamburri, D. A. (2022). Impacts of software community patterns on process and product: An empirical study. Science of Computer Programming, 214, Article 102731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2021.102731
De Stefano, M., Pecorelli, F., Tamburri, D. A., Palomba, F., & De Lucia, A. (2020). Splicing community patterns and smells: A preliminary study. ICSEW ’20: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops, 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1145/3387940.3392204
Dey, S., & Woods, W. (2022). LAGOON: An analysis tool for open source communities. MSR ’22: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 717–721. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524842.3528504
Ducheneaut, N. (2005). Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 323–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9000-1
Engard, N. C. (2010). Practical open source software for libraries. Chandos Publishing.
Ferreira, M., Mombach, T., Valente, M. T., & Ferreira, K. (2019). Algorithms for estimating truck factors: A comparative study. Software Quality Journal, 27, 1583–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-019-09457-2
Geiger, R. S., & Ribes, D. (2011). Trace ethnography: Following coordination through documentary practices. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.455
Germonprez, M., Link, G. J. P., Lumbard, K., & Goggins, S. (2018). Eight observations and 24 research questions about open source projects: Illuminating new realities. In K. Karahalios, A. Monroy-Hernández, A. Lampinen, & G. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274326
Goggins, S. P., Germonprez, M., & Lumbard, K. (2021a). Making open source project health transparent. Computer, 54(8), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2021.3084015
Goggins, S., Lumbard, K., & Germonprez, M. (2021b). Open source community health: Analytical metrics and their corresponding narratives. IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Health in Projects, Ecosystems and Communities (SoHeal), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/SoHeal52568.2021.00010
Goggins, S. P., Mascaro, C., & Valetto, G. (2013). Group informatics: A methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 516–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22802
Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., Izquierdo-Cortázar, D., & Robles, G. (2022). Software development metrics with a purpose. Computer, 55(4), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3145680
Government of Canada. (2021). Digital nations charter. Retrieved on August 21, 2024 from https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/improving-digital-services/digital-nations-charter.html
Gray, K. L. (2023). Breathing life into Archon: A case study in working with an unsupported system. Code4Lib, 57. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/17509
Guimont, C., Vaughn, M., & Ball, C. E. (2023). Finding the right platform: A crosswalk of academy-owned and open-source digital publishing platforms. Knowledge Commons. https://doi.org/10.17613/z27e-0z11
Jabrayilzade, E., Evtikhiev, M., Tüzün, E., & Kovalenko, V. (2022). Bus factor in practice. ICSE-SEIP '22: Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510457.3513082
Joblin, M., Mauerer, W., Apel, S., Siegmund, J., & Riehle, D. (2015). From developer networks to verified communities: A fine-grained approach. 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.73
Klimov, E., Ahmed, M. U., Sviridov, N., Derakhshanfar, P., Tüzün, E., & Kovalenko, V. (2023). Bus Factor Explorer. 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2018–2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00015
Kwan, I., Cataldo, M., & Damian, D. (2012). Conway’s law revisited: The evidence for a task-based perspective. IEEE Software, 29(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.3
Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 593–614. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318920
Lasou, P., & Neugebauer, T. (2024a). Community patterns of scholarly communication open source software generated by YOSHI [dataset]. Borealis. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/4MEDXO
Lasou, P., & Neugebauer, T. (2024b). Community smells detection on scholarly communication open source software using csDetector [dataset]. Borealis. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/34MYPI
Lease Morgan, E. (2002). Possibilities for open source software in libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 21(1), 12–15.
Lewis, D. W. (2017). The 2.5% commitment [working paper]. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from http://doi.org/10.7912/C2JD29
Linåker, J., Papatheocharous, E., & Olsson, T. (2022). How to characterize the health of an open source software project? A snowball literature review of an emerging practice. OpenSym 2022, Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555067
Link, G. J. P., & Germonprez, M. (2018). Assessing open source project health. 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems 2018. AMCIS Proceedings 5, 1–5.
Lumbard, K., Germonprez, M., & Goggins, S. (2024). An empirical investigation of social comparison and open source community health. Information Systems Journal, 34(2), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12485
Martin, S. (2018). The 2.5% commitment: 2.5% of whom? [Presentation]. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://hdl.handle.net/2022/22548
Martin, V. (2022). The complete guide to open scholarship. Bloomsbury Publishing.
McClean, K., Greer, D., & Jurek-Loughrey, A. (2021). Social network analysis of open source software: A review and categorisation. Information and Software Technology, 130, Article 106442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106442
McIlwain, J. R. (2023). Towards an open source-first praxis in libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16025
Nagappan, N., Murphy, B., & Basili, V. (2008). The influence of organizational structure on software quality: An empirical case study. ICSE ’08: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368160
Nelson, A. (2022). Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. [Memorandum]. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C. Retrieved on August 21, 2024, from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65799/dot_65799_DS1.pdf
Nuri22. (2021). csDetector [Source Code]. https://github.com/Nuri22/csDetector
Onoue, S., Hata, H., Monden, A., & Matsumoto, K. (2016). Investigating and projecting population structures in open source software projects: A case study of projects in GitHub. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E99.D(5), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.2015EDP7363
Open Society Institute. (2004). Guide to institutional repository software (3rd ed.) [PDF]. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/resources/guide-to-institutional-repository-software/
OpenDOAR. (2024, May). OpenDOAR statistics. Retrieved on May 19, 2024, from https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/view/repository_visualisations/1.html
Oriol, M., Müller, C., Marco, J., Fernandez, P., Franch, X., & Ruiz-Cortés, A. (2023). Comprehensive assessment of open source software ecosystem health. Internet of Things, 22, Article 100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.100808
Palomba, F., Tamburri, D. A., Serebrenik, A., Zaidman, A., Fontana, F. A., & Oliveto, R. (2018). How do community smells influence code smells? Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, 240–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3194950
Palomba, F., & Tamburri, D. A. (2021). Predicting the emergence of community smells using socio-technical metrics: A machine-learning approach. The Journal of Systems and Software, 171, Article 110847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110847
Paradis, C., & Kazman, R. (2022). Building the MSR tool Kaiaulu: Design principles and experiences. In P. Scandurra, M. Galster, R. Mirandola, & D. Weyns (Eds.), Software Architecture. ECSA 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15116-3_6
Paradis, C., Kazman, R., & Tamburri, D. (2024). Analyzing the Tower of Babel with Kaiaulu. The Journal of Systems & Software, 210, Article 111967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.111967
Qiu, H. S., Lieb, A., Chou, J., Carneal, M., Mok, J., Amspoker, E., Vasilescu, B., & Dabbish, L. (2023). Climate Coach: A dashboard for open-source maintainers to overview community dynamics. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581317
Raman, N., Cao, M., Tsvetkov, Y., Kästner, C., & Vasilescu, B. (2020). Stress and burnout in open source: Toward finding, understanding, and mitigating unhealthy interactions. ICSE-NIER ’20: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results,57–60. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377816.3381732
Rhyno, A. (2004). Using open source systems for digital libraries. Libraries Unlimited.
Ricca, F., Marchetto, A., & Torchiano, M. (2011). On the difficulty of computing the truck factor. In D. Caivano, M. Oivo, M. T. Baldassarre, & G. Visaggio (Eds.), Product-focused software process improvement (Vol. 6759, p. 337-351). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21843-9_26
Rosen, H., & Grogg, J. (2021, August). LYRASIS 2021 open source software survey report: Understanding the landscape of open source software in American libraries. LYRASIS. https://doi.org/10.48609/n35f-5828
Singh, V. (2020). Applying participatory action approach to integrating professional librarians into open source software communities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(2), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619836724
Skog, A. (2023). Strategies for collaboration: ICOLC Open Collaboration in Library Consortia recommendations. Journal of Library Administration, 63(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2146443
Tamburri, D. A., Blincoe, K., Palomba, F., & Kazman, F. (2020). “The canary in the coal mine…” A cautionary tale from the decline of SourceForge. Software: Practice and Experience, 50(10), 1930–1951. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2874
Tamburri, D. A., Di Nucci, D., Di Giacomo, L., & Palomba, F. (2019b) Omniscient DevOps analytics. In J. M. Bruel, M. Mazzara, B. Meyer (Eds.), Software Engineering Aspects of Continuous Development and New Paradigms of Software Production and Deployment: First International Workshop, DEVOPS 2018, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06019-0_4
Tamburri, D., Kazman, R., & Fahimi, H. (2023). On the relationship between organizational structure patterns and architecture in Agile teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 49(1), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3150415
Tamburri, D. A., Kazman, R., Van Den Heuvel, W-J. (2019a). Splicing community and software architecture smells in Agile teams: An industrial study. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 7037–7047. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/60140
Tamburri, D. A., Kruchten, P., Lago, P., & van Vliet, H. (2013a). What is social debt in software engineering? 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE.2013.6614739
Tamburri, D. A., Kruchten, P., Lago, P., & van Vliet, H. (2015). Social debt in software engineering: Insights from industry. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 6, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-015-0024-6
Tamburri, D. A., Lago, P., & van Vliet, H. (2013b). Organizational social structures for software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522971
Tamburri, D. A., Palomba, F., & Kazman, R. (2021a). Exploring community smells in open-source: An automated approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(3), 630–652. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2901490
Tamburri, D. A., Palomba, F., & Kazman, R. (2021b). Success and failure in software engineering: A followup systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(2), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2976642
Tamburri, D. A., Palomba, F., Serebrenik, A., & Zaidman, A. (2019c). Discovering community patterns in open-source: A systematic approach and its evaluation. Empirical Software Engineering, 24, 1369–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9659-9
Tamburri, D. A. (2024). YOSHI 2 [Source Code]. https://github.com/maelstromdat/YOSHI/tree/master/yoshi2
Tatham, E. (2010, November 23). Roles in open source projects. OSS Watch. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/rolesinopensource
Thacker, J. C., Knutson, C. D., & Dehmlow, M. (2014, July). Open source software. SPEC Kit 340. Association of Research Libraries.
Thacker, C., & Knutson, C. (2015). Barriers to initiation of open source software projects in libraries. Code4Lib, 29. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/10665
Traag, V. A., Krings, G., & Van Dooren, P. (2013). Significant scales in community structure. Scientific Reports, 3, Article 2930. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02930
van Meijel, J. (2021). On the relations between community patterns and smells in open-source: A taxonomic and empirical analysis [Master’s thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology]. https://research.tue.nl/en/studentTheses/on-the-relations-between-community-patterns-and-smells-in-open-so
Voria, G., Pentangelo, V., Della Porta, A., Lambiase, S., Catolino, G., Palomba, F., & Ferrucci, F. (2022). Community smell detection and refactoring in SLACK: The CADOCS project. Proceedings 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME55016.2022.00061
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Yang, R., Yang, Y., Shen, Y., Sun, H. (2023). An approach to assessing the health of opensource software ecosystems. In Y. Sun, T. Lu, Y. Guo, X. Song, H. Fan, D. Liu, L. Gao, & B. Du. (Eds.), Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 17th CCF Conference, ChineseCSCW 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2356-4_37
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pierre Lasou, Tomasz Neugebauer, Pamela Carson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International applies to all works published by Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Authors will retain copyright of the work.
