Task‐Based Structures in Open Source Software: Revisiting the Onion Model
Open accessAbstract
Studies on Open Source Software (OSS) developer communities have long stated that there is a relationship between community structure and tasks carried out by project members. This relationship has been exemplified by the onion model, which has been instrumental in understanding self‐coordination in OSS projects. Despite its ubiquity, there is a lack of empirical evidence to validate the relative position of each task cluster within the onion model. In this study, we map out the community structure of a large open source project and observe its bug‐fixing patterns to explore the relationship between tasks and structure. Our study makes three significant contributions. First, we find no empirical evidence to support the structural location of bug‐fixing tasks in the onion structure. Second, we find empirical evidence to support the core‐periphery continuum model linking an actor’s coreness to problem‐solving ability. Third, our results suggest that the importance and location of each task within the core‐periphery structure evolve over time. These findings add clarity to the community structure and their implications for the management and coordination of collaborative innovation projects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
People can move between positions of peripherality and centrality.
“First, this reaffirms research such as Dahlander and O'Mahony (2011) and Christian and Vu (2021) who demonstrate people can move between positions of peripherality and centrality.”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Christian and Vu (2021)
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study
von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00050-7 · Cited by 1,025 · cited 3× · see citing works
“OSS communities consist of a small group of highly skilled programmers at its core and a much larger group of average programmers at its periphery (Cox, 1998; Raymond, 1998; von Krogh et al., 2003).”
BackgroundThe 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
- Authors
- Christian, J., & Vu, A. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Brighton (GB)
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Christian, Jose
- Vu, Anh N.
- Venue
- R&D Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-08-19
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-100
- ISSN
- 0033-6807 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9310
- OpenAlex
- W3076816946
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- R and D Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- open source software, onion model, community structure, bug fixes, core-periphery structure, coreness, self-coordination, developer communities, collaborative innovation
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