CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering Research

Sustaining Maintenance Labor for Healthy Open Source Software Projects through Human Infrastructure: A Maintainer Perspective

Open access
Linåker, Johan, Link, Georg, Lumbard, Kevin·2024·Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
DOI 10.1145/3674805.3686667
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Open Source Software (OSS) fuels our global digital infrastructure but is commonly maintained by small groups of people whose time and labor represent a depletable resource. For the OSS projects to stay sustainable, i.e., viable and maintained over time without interruption or weakening, maintenance labor requires an underlying infrastructure to be supported and secured. Aims: Using the construct of human infrastructure, our study aims to investigate how maintenance labor can be supported and secured to enable the creation and maintenance of sustainable OSS projects, viewed from the maintainers’ perspective. Method: In our exploration, we interviewed ten maintainers from nine well-adopted OSS projects. We coded the data in two steps using investigator-triangulation. Results: We constructed a framework of infrastructure design that provide insight for OSS projects in the design of their human infrastructure. The framework specifically highlight the importance of human factors, e.g., securing a work-life balance and proactively managing social pressure, toxicity, and diversity. We also note both differences and overlaps in how the infrastructure needs to support and secure maintenance labor from maintainers and the wider OSS community, respectively. Funding is specifically highlighted as an important enabler for both types of resources. Conclusions: The study contributes to the qualitative understanding of the importance, sensitivity, and risk for depletion of the maintenance labor required to build and maintain healthy OSS projects. Human infrastructure is pivotal in ensuring that maintenance labor is sustainable, and by extension the OSS projects on which we all depend.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3674805.3686667

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Several OSS projects still rely on informal or opaque governance practices, often centered on a few long-standing maintainers.

    “Several OSS projects still rely on informal or opaque governance practices, often centered on a few long-standing maintainers [22, 29, 39].”

    From Governance in Practice: How Open Source Projects Define and Document Roles (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction (section 1; page unavailable) says that a small core of maintainers performs much of the maintenance labor in many OSS projects and that maintainers undertake project governance. It does not establish that those maintainers are long-standing or that the governance practices are informal or opaque. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Curtis Atkisson and Brenda Bushouse. 2023. Managing for Volunteer Energy: Variations by Role in a Nonprofit Open Source Software Foundation. Technical Report. SocArXiv Papers. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cxs2uLicense · DOI
  2. Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. A novel approach for estimating Truck Factors. In 2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICPC.2016.7503718 · DOI
  3. Ann Barcomb, Andreas Kaufmann, Dirk Riehle, Klaas-Jan Stol, and Brian Fitzger- ald. 2018. Uncovering the periphery: A qualitative survey of episodic volunteering in free/libre and open source software communities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46, 9 (2018), 962-980.
  4. Ann Barcomb, Klaas-Jan Stol, Brian Fitzgerald, and Dirk Riehle. 2020. Managing Episodic Volunteers in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Communities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 1 (2020), 260-277. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TSE.2020.2985093 · DOI
  5. Knut Blind, Mirko Böhm, Paula Grzegorzewska, Andrew Katz, Sachiko Muto, Sivan Pätsch, and Torben Schubert. 2021. The impact of Open Source Software and Hardware on technological independence, competitiveness and innovation in the EU economy. Final Study Report. European Commission, Brussels (2021). https://doi.org/10.2759/430161 · DOI
  6. Eugenio Capra and Anthony I. Wasserman. 2008. A Framework for Eval- uating Managerial Styles in Open Source Projects. In Open Source Develop- ment, Communities and Quality, Barbara Russo, Ernesto Damiani, Scott Hissam, Björn Lundell, and Giancarlo Succi (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09684-1_1 · DOI
  7. Kattiana Constantino, Mauricio Souza, Shurui Zhou, Eduardo Figueiredo, and Christian Kästner. 2023. Perceptions of open-source software developers on collaborations: An interview and survey study. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 35, 5 (2023), e2393. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2393 · DOI
  8. Kevin Crowston, Hala Annabi, James Howison, and Chengetai Masango. [n. d.]. Effective work practices for software engineering: free/libre open source soft- ware development. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Interdisciplinary software engineering research (Newport Beach CA USA, 2004-11-05). ACM, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1145/1029997.1030003 · DOI
  9. Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, Qing Li, and James Howison. 2006. Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications. In Pro- ceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), Vol. 6. IEEE, 118a-118a. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.101 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Nadia Eghbal. 2020. Working in public: The making and maintenance of open source software. Stripe Press.
  11. Hongbo Fang, Hemank Lamba, James Herbsleb, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2022. "This is damn slick!": estimating the impact of tweets on open source project popularity and new contributors. In Proceedings of the 44th International Con- ference on Software Engineering (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (ICSE '22). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2116-2129. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3510121 · DOI
  12. Armstrong Foundjem, Ellis Eghan, and Bram Adams. 2021. Onboarding vs. Di- versity, Productivity and Quality -Empirical Study of the OpenStack Ecosystem. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1033-1045. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00097 · DOI
  13. Robin A. Gandhi and Seok-Won Lee. 2009. Assurance Case Driven Case Study De- sign for Requirements Engineering Research. In Requirements Engineering: Foun- dation for Software Quality, Martin Glinz and Patrick Heymans (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-02050-6_16 · DOI
  14. Sean Goggins, Kevin Lumbard, and Matt Germonprez. 2021. Open Source Com- munity Health: Analytical Metrics and Their Corresponding Narratives. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Health in Projects, Ecosystems and Communities (SoHeal). 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/SoHeal52568.2021. 00010 · DOI
  15. Egon G Guba. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj 29, 2 (1981), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Mariam Guizani, Amreeta Chatterjee, Bianca Trinkenreich, Mary Evelyn May, Geraldine J. Noa-Guevara, Liam James Russell, Griselda G. Cuevas Zambrano, Daniel Izquierdo-Cortazar, Igor Steinmacher, Marco A. Gerosa, and Anita Sarma. 2021. The Long Road Ahead: Ongoing Challenges in Contributing to Large OSS Organizations and What to Do. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 407 (oct 2021), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479551 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Giuseppe Iaffaldano, Igor Steinmacher, Fabio Calefato, Marco Gerosa, and Fil- ippo Lanubile. 2019. Why do developers take breaks from contributing to OSS projects? a preliminary analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software Health (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (SoHeal '19). IEEE Press, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/SoHeal.2019.00009 · DOI
  18. Amanda Lee and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2017. Are One-Time Contributors Different? A Comparison to Core and Periphery Developers in FLOSS Repositories. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.7 · DOI
  19. Charlotte P. Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark. 2006. The Human Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Banff, Alberta, Canada) (CSCW '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 483-492. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180950 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole. 2002. Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics 50, 2 (2002), 197-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 6451.00174 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Johan Linåker, Efi Papatheocharous, and Thomas Olsson. 2022. How to char- acterize the health of an Open Source Software project? A snowball litera- ture review of an emerging practice. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (Madrid, Spain) (OpenSym '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 12 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555067 · DOI
  22. Courtney Miller, David Gray Widder, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Why Do People Give Up FLOSSing? A Study of Contributor Disengagement in Open Source. In Open Source Systems, Francis Bordeleau, Alberto Sillitti, Paulo Meirelles, and Valentina Lenarduzzi (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20883-7_11 · DOI
  23. Audris Mockus, Roy T. Fielding, and James D. Herbsleb. 2002. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11, 3 (jul 2002), 309-346. https://doi.org/10.1145/567793.567795 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Cassandra Overney, Jens Meinicke, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2020. How to Not Get Rich: An Empirical Study of Donations in Open Source. (2020), 1209-1221. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380410 · DOI
  25. Gustavo Pinto, Igor Steinmacher, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. More Com- mon Than You Think: An In-depth Study of Casual Contributors. In 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), Vol. 1. 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2016.68 · DOI
  26. Dirk Riehle. 2012. The single-vendor commercial open course business model. Information Systems and e-Business Management 10, 1 (2012), 5-17. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10257-010-0149-x · DOI
  27. Dirk Riehle, Philipp Riemer, Carsten Kolassa, and Michael Schmidt. 2014. Paid vs. Volunteer Work in Open Source. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 3286-3295. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.407 · DOI
  28. Charles M Schweik and Robert C English. 2012. Internet success: a study of open-source software commons. MIT Press.
  29. James P Spradley. 2016. The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press.
  30. Igor Steinmacher, Marco Gerosa, Tayana U Conte, and David F Redmiles. 2019. Overcoming social barriers when contributing to open source software projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 28, 1 (2019), 247-290. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9335-z · DOI
  31. 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.
  32. Zhendong Wang, Yang Feng, Yi Wang, James A. Jones, and David Redmiles. 2020. Unveiling Elite Developers' Activities in Open Source Projects. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 3, Article 16 (jun 2020), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3387111 · DOI
  33. Yang Yue, Yi Wang, and David Redmiles. 2023. Off to a Good Start: Dynamic Contribution Patterns and Technical Success in an OSS Newcomer's Early Career. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 2 (2023), 529-548. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TSE.2022.3156071 · DOI
  34. Yuxia Zhang, Hui Liu, Xin Tan, Minghui Zhou, Zhi Jin, and Jiaxin Zhu. 2022. Turnover of Companies in OpenStack: Prevalence and Rationale. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 31, 4, Article 75 (jul 2022), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3510849 · DOI
  35. Jiayuan Zhou, Shaowei Wang, Yasutaka Kamei, Ahmed E Hassan, and Naoyasu Ubayashi. 2022. Studying donations and their expenses in open source projects: a case study of GitHub projects collecting donations through open collectives. Empirical Software Engineering 27, 1 (2022), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664- 021-10060-y · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linåker, J., Link, G., & Lumbard, K.
Affiliations
  • RISE Research Institutes of Sweden (SE)
  • Bitergia, United States
  • Creighton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-10-24
Pages
37-48
ISSN
1938-6451 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3674805.3686667
OpenAlex
W4403413391
Cited by
14
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 4
FWCI
5.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ... ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement/International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (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, human infrastructure, software sustainability, maintainers, work-life balance, social pressure, workplace toxicity, diversity, funding, 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