Loosen control without losing control: Formalization and decentralization within commons‐based peer production
Open accessAbstract
This study considers commons‐based peer production (CBPP) by examining the organizational processes of the free/libre open‐source software community, Drupal. It does so by exploring the sociotechnical systems that have emerged around both Drupal's development and its face‐to‐face communitarian events. There has been criticism of the simplistic nature of previous research into free software; this study addresses this by linking studies of CBPP with a qualitative study of Drupal's organizational processes. It focuses on the evolution of organizational structures, identifying the intertwined dynamics of formalization and decentralization, resulting in coexisting sociotechnical systems that vary in their degrees of organicity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In large CBPP communities such as Wikipedia and large FLOSS cases, boundaries are usually defined to coordinate contribution activities.
“In the case of large CBPP communities, such as Wikipedia and large FLOSS cases, boundaries are usually defined to coordinate contribution activities.”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The sections on formalization and decentralization describe more explicit boundaries in Drupal, while the Discussion reports formalized processes in Wikipedia and more formal boundaries in Apache. These examples support the general idea, but the paper does not establish that boundaries are *usually* defined across large CBPP communities specifically to coordinate contribution activities. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhen CBPP communities start to grow substantially, they normally try to decentralize control over this infrastructure, which is commonly achieved by incrementing the degree of formalization.
“When CBPP communities start to grow substantially, they normally try to decentralize control over this infrastructure, which is commonly achieved by incrementing the degree of formalization.”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The 'Multiple organizational forms' section says Drupal’s growth led to decentralized decision-making and greater formalization. The Discussion also notes a similar pattern reported for Wikipedia. These passages support the relationship, but do not establish that CBPP communities normally follow it or specifically decentralize control over infrastructure. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe local jurisdiction of sub-projects is acknowledged within the general project in FLOSS communities.
“the local jurisdiction of sub-projects is acknowledged within the general project in FLOSS communities (Rozas and Huckle, 2021).”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The ‘Intermediate degrees of organicity’ section says Drupal grants maintainers decision-making authority within the autonomous scope of an officially incorporated contributed project. This supports the claim for Drupal, but the Discussion describes Drupal as a case study whose lessons require adaptation to other FLOSS communities; it does not establish the practice across FLOSS communities generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe critical stand against techno-solutionist perspectives has ignored the potential of some collectives to self-organize.
“As a result, as we have previously argued (Rozas et al., 2021b), this critical stand has ignored the potential of some collectives to self-organize.”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021b
The Conceptual Background (page unavailable) says critiques point to a need to understand how decentralized decision-making and collective organization emerge in commons-based peer production. The Conclusions (page unavailable) describe autonomous organizational forms in Drupal. These passages support the potential for collective self-organization, but they do not establish that a critical stand against techno-solutionism ignored that potential. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOrganizational formalization can shift power to those coding the rules to govern blockchain networks and by extension the digital commons.
“This organizational formalization can shift power to those coding the rules to govern blockchain networks and by extension the digital commons (Rozas and Huckle, 2021).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The Discussion (page unavailable) links formalization in Drupal to the distribution of authority, including participants’ authority to make rules for a digital commons. It does not say that power shifts specifically to people coding rules, or examine governance of blockchain networks. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Members of the digital commons must discuss rule changes, or update smart contracts, and subsequently encode these changes.
“As a result, members of the digital commons must discuss rule changes, or update smart contracts, and subsequently encode these changes. (Rozas et al., 2021b)”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021b
In “Formalization and Decentralization in CBPP” (Low degrees of organicity; page unavailable), the paper describes community discussions and rules agreed and formalized by Drupal contributors. It does not say that members of digital commons must follow this sequence, update smart contracts, or subsequently encode rule changes. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThose with more power in the community may experience higher pressure because of frequent rounds of negotiations.
“Yet, those with more power in the community may experience higher pressure because of frequent rounds of negotiations, and the decentralized governance model would allot a higher degree of freedom and agency to local networks which emerge over time (Rozas and Huckle, 2021).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes constant negotiation to distribute authority and says blurred decision-making can create tension as Drupal scales up. It does not say that members with more power experience greater pressure because of those negotiations. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDigital commons regulated by blockchain networks must have 'formalized governance rules' understood and executed by algorithms in natural language.
“The implication is that digital commons regulated by blockchain networks must have ' formalized governance rules ' (Rozas et al., 2021b) understood and executed by algorithms in natural language.”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021b
The 'Low degrees of organicity' section describes Drupal's digital commons becoming more dependent on explicit rules agreed and formalized by the community. That supports the idea of formalized rules, but the paper does not establish that blockchain-regulated commons must use them or that algorithms understand and execute them in natural language. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOther forms of decentralized governance have been found in Aragon and large Commons-Based Peer Production communities like Wikipedia and FLOSS projects.
“Other forms of decentralized governance have been found in Aragon (Aragon Network DAO, 2012) and large Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP) communities like Wikipedia and FLOSS projects (Rozas et al., 2021a).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021a
The decentralized governance model would allot a higher degree of freedom and agency to local networks which emerge over time.
“Yet, those with more power in the community may experience higher pressure because of frequent rounds of negotiations, and the decentralized governance model would allot a higher degree of freedom and agency to local networks which emerge over time (Rozas and Huckle, 2021).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas and Huckle, 2021
The identification of six affordances (tokenization, self-enforcement and formalization of rules, autonomous automatization, decentralization of power over the infrastructure, increasing transparency, codification of trust) constitutes functional and relational aspects that frame the potentialities of self-organized collectives for agentic action with regards to blockchain-based tools for commons.
“The result was the identification of six affordances6 (Hutchby, 2001), which constitute functional and relational aspects that frame the potentialities of self-organized collectives for agentic action, with regards to blockchain-based tools for commons governance (Rozas et al., 2021b, 8–20):”
From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021b
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlthough there is currently no clear view of how a DAO designed for commons governance would operate, there have been some examples of projects that claim to rely on commons-oriented perspectives, including Commons Stack and Aragon DAO platform.
“Although there is currently no clear view of how a DAO designed for commons governance would operate (Vulpen and Jansen, 2015), there have been same examples of projects who claim to rely on commons-oriented perspectives, including the Commons Stack project and the Aragon DAO platform (Rozas et al., 2021b).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021b
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe implementation of decentralized courts in blockchain networks can bolster user buy-in to the decentralized governance model.
“Moreover, the implementation of decentralized courts in blockchain networks can also bolster user buy-in to the decentralized governance model (Rozas et al., 2021a).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Rozas et al., 2021a
The Introduction identifies the paper as a study of Drupal community governance, and the Discussion addresses how Drupal distributes decision-making authority. Searches for blockchain, courts, and user buy-in found no passage addressing whether decentralized courts in blockchain networks increase support for a governance model. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001 · Cited by 7,343 · see citing works
Delmont, S., & Mason, J. (1997) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/591613 · Cited by 4,245 · see citing works
The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom
Given, J. (2007) · Information Economics and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2007.03.001 · Cited by 3,396 · see citing works
Raymond, E. S. (1998) · Knowledge, technology & policy/Knowledge in society/Knowledge, technology, & policy · doi:10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0 · Cited by 3,083 · see citing works
Coase's penguin, or, linux and “the nature of the firm”
Benkler, Y. (2002) · The Yale Law Journal · doi:10.2307/1562247 · Cited by 1,572 · see citing works
COPING WITH TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS
Elinor Ostrom, B. (1999) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis
Altheide, D. L. (1987) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988269 · Cited by 903 · see citing works
The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community
O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 · Cited by 899 · see citing works
In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428106289253 · Cited by 805 · see citing works
Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity
Spinuzzi, C. (2012) · Journal of Business and Technical Communication · doi:10.1177/1050651912444070 · Cited by 764 · see citing works
Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and closure
Alvesson, M. G. (2003) · Higher Education · doi:10.1023/a:1024716513774 · Cited by 471 · see citing works
Decentralization in wikipedia governance.
Forte, A., Larco, V., & Bruckman, A. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260103 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Neither market nor hierarchy nor network: The emergence of bazaar governance
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2006) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840606067250 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
The Future of Activity Theory: A Rough Draft
Engeström, Y. (2009) · Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809989.020 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & McKeon, M. M. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73257-0_49 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the network society
Kreiss, D., Finn, M., & Turner, F. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810370951 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Organizations in the Shadow of Communities
O'Mahony, S. C., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · Research in the sociology of organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x(2011)0000033004 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2014) · International Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.1177/1367877913519310 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Louadi, M. E. (1998) · Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1998.tb00161.x · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Organizations in the Shadow of CommunitiesPreprint
O'Mahony, S. C., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1873989 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Stratocracy in High-Technology Firms
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1987) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165266 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
(2010) · Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Governing Open Source Software Through Coordination Processes
Shaikh, M., & Henfridsson, O. (2017) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.04.001 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community
Mateos-Garcia, J. C., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2008) · Information Economics and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2008.06.001 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Understanding How Companies Interact with Free Software Communities
Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., Izquierdo-Cortázar, D., Maffulli, S., & Robles, G. (2013) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2013.95 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Governance of Online Creation Communities for the Building of Digital Commons:
Morell, M. F. (2014) · Governing Knowledge Commons · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199972036.003.0009 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
The Art of Community. Building the New Age of Participation
(2013) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-01-2013-0404 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Schweik, C. M., & English, R. (2013) · International Journal of the Commons · doi:10.18352/bmgn-lchr.397 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Arazy, O., Lifshitz‐Assaf, H., & Balila, A. (2018) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24076 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Activity Theory for OSS Ecosystems
Uden, L., Damiani, E., Gianini, G., & Ceravolo, P. (2007) · IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies · doi:10.1109/dest.2007.371974 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Zacchiroli, S. (2011) · Workshop on Open Source and Design of Communication (OSDOC) · doi:10.1145/2016716.2016740 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Organizational Boundaries in Fluid Forms of Production: The Case of Apache Open-source Software
Barberio, V., Höllerer, M. A., Meyer, R. E., & Jancsary, D. C. (2018) · Research in the sociology of organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20180000057006 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Professional Norms and Organizational Goals: An Illusory Dichotomy
Harrison, E. F., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41164346 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
The Social Order of Open Source Software Production
Gläser, J. (2007) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-999-1.ch014 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
The Open Source Software Ecosystem
Schweik, C. M. (2009) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-organisation in commons-based peer production : Drupal : "the drop is always moving".
Rozas, D. (2017) · Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity‐theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
- Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (revised). Sebastopol, California, United States: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
- Rozas, D., & Huckle, S. (2020). Exploring organisation through contributions: Using activity theory for the study of contemporary digital labour practices. In G. Symon, K. Pritchard, & C. Hine (Eds.), Research methods for digital work and organization: Investigating distributed, multi‐modal and mobile work, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press forthcoming.
- Txoler, P. (2014). Making the third industrial revolution. In J. Walter‐Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 181– 194). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.
- Zacchiroli, S. (2011). Debian: 18 years of free software, do‐ocracy, and democracy (keynote). In OSDOC'11: Proceedings of the 2011 workshop on open source and Design of Communication. Lisboa, Portugal: ACM.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When Ostrom Meets Blockchain: Exploring the Potentials of Blockchain for Commons Governance
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., Díaz-Molina, S., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211002526 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Self-citationAnalysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.577680 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationIslam, T., & Munir, S. (2022) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/jwl-11-2021-0144 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
A Categorization of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: The Case of the Aragon Platform
Peña-Calvin, A., Saldivar, J., Arroyo, J., & Hassan, S. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2023.3299254 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Decentralized autonomous organization design for the commons and the common good
van Vulpen, P., & Jansen, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2023.1287249 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs
Esposito, M., Tse, T., & Goh, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1538227 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Addressing durability in collaborative organising: Event atmospheres and polyrhythmic affectivity
Resch, B., & Rozas, D. (2024) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/00187267241229344 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationRozas, D., Gilbert, N., Hodkinson, P., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2021.618207 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationCommoning for Fun and Profit: Experimental Publishing on the Decentralized Web
Walker, D., Sutton, M. I., Vira, U., & Lau, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555126 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Quality teamwork on Wikipedia: Interpersonal communication networks as a social capital booster
Rychwalska, A., Talaga, S., Ziembowicz, K., & Jemielniak, D. (2025) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.70014 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Mina, M. A. E., & Vargas, A. M. C. (2022) · INNOVA Research Journal · doi:10.33890/innova.v7.n3.1.2022.2134 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
‘Becommoning': a design-framework for the initiation of new commons
Tomor, Z., & de Waal, M. (2023) · International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress (IASDR) · doi:10.21606/iasdr.2023.381 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Talk is Silver, Code is Gold? Beyond 'Object-Centric' Notions of Contribution in Peer ProductionPreprint
Rozas, D., Gilbert, N., Hodkinson, P., & Hassan, S. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3272342 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationCommunication networks and group effectiveness: the case of English WikipediaPreprint
Rychwalska, A., Talaga, S., Ziembowicz, K., & Jemielniak, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03506 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
On unifying psychology: A view from the trenches; and what's wrong with pluralism anyway?
Saporta, J. (2022) · Rivista di Psicologia Clinica · doi:10.3280/rpc1-2022oa14458
From openness to integration: the role of vulnerability in consent-based decision-making
Pölderl, C. (2026) · Journal of Organizational Ethnography · doi:10.1108/joe-02-2025-0016
- Authors
- Rozas, D., & Huckle, S.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
- Department of Informatics, School of Engineering and Informatics University of Sussex Brighton UK
- Corresponding author
- Rozas, David
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-16
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 204-223
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- PMC
- PMC7976438
- OpenAlex
- W3035977168
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Docta Complutense (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- H2020 European Research Council (759207)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
- Keywords
- commons-based peer production, Drupal, free and open source software, formalization, decentralization, organizational structure, socio-technical systems, organicity, open source communities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
