Ten simple rules for helping newcomers become contributors to open projects
Open accessAbstract
To survive and thrive, a must attract new members, retain them, and help them be productive [1]. As openness becomes the norm in research, software development, and education, knowing how to do this has become an essential skill for principal investigators and managers alike. A growing body of knowledge in sociology, anthropology, education, and software engineering can guide decisions about how to facilitate this. What exactly do we mean by community? In the case of open source and open science, the most usual meaning is a community of practice. As defined by Lave and Wenger [2, 3], groups as diverse as knitting circles, oncology researchers, and web designers share three key characteristics: Participants have a common product or purpose that they work on or toward. They are mutually engaged, i.e., they assist and mentor each another. They develop shared resources and domain knowledge. Brown [4] specializes this to define a community of as …a formed in pursuit of a common goal. The goal can be definite or indefinite in time, and may not be clearly defined, but it is something that (generally speaking) the is aligned on. People working to preserve coral reefs in the face of global climate change are an example of such a community. No central organization coordinates their work, but the scientists who study coral reefs, the environmentalists who work to protect them, and the citizens who support them financially and politically are aware of each other’s efforts, collaborate in ad hoc ways, and are conscious of contributing toward a shared purpose. Open-source software projects are also communities of effort. E.g., the Mozilla Firefox [5] includes a mix of paid professionals, highly involved volunteers, and occasional contributors who not only create software, documentation, and tutorials but also organize events, answer questions in online forums, mentor newcomers, and advocate for open standards. Every of effort has unique features, but they have enough in common to profit from one another’s experience. The 10 rules laid out below are based on studies of such communities and on the authors’ experience as members, leaders, and observers. Our focus is on small and medium-sized projects, i.e., ones that have a handful of to a few hundred participants and are a few months to a few years old but may not (yet) have any formal legal standing, such as incorporation as a nonprofit.
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?
CoCs are generally considered helpful in attracting newcomers.
“CoCs are generally considered helpful in attracting newcomers [18,21], yet there is little to no empirical evidence to support that.”
From Codes of Conduct in Open Source (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
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
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- [1]Qureshi I, Fang Y. Socialization in open source software projects: A growth mixture modeling approach. Organizational Research Methods. 2011; 14(1): 208– 238.
- [3]Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
- [7]Singh V. Newcomer integration and learning in technical support communities for open source software. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work—GROUP'12. New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2012. p. 65–74.
- [8]Steinmacher I, Wiese I, Chaves AP, Gerosa MA. Why do newcomers abandon open source software projects? In: 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE'13). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); 2013. p. 25–32.
- [9]Steinmacher I, Pinto G, Wiese IS, Gerosa MA. Almost There: A Study on Quasi-Contributors in Open-Source Software Projects. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'18). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2018. p. 256–266.
- [12]Sarma A, Chen X, Kuttal S, Dabbish L, Wang Z. Hiring in the Global Stage: Profiles of Online Contributions. In: 2016 IEEE 11th International Conference on Global Software Engineering. ICGSE 2016. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); 2016. p. 1–10.
- [16]Freeman J. The Tyranny of Structurelessness. The Second Wave. 1972; 2(1): 20.
- [18]Minahan A. Martha’s Rules. Affilia. 1986; 1(2): 53– 56. 10.1177/088610998600100206 · DOI
- [21]Dagenais B, Ossher H, Bellamy RKE, Robillard MP, de Vries JP. Moving Into a New Software Project Landscape. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'10). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2010. p. 275–284.
- [22]Steinmacher I, Conte TU, Treude C, Gerosa MA. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'16). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2016. p. 273–284
- [27]Zanatta AL, Steinmacher I, Machado LS, de Souza CRB, Prikladnicki R. Barriers Faced by Newcomers to Software-Crowdsourcing Projects. IEEE Software. 2017; 34(2): 37– 43. 10.1109/ms.2017.32 · DOI
- [28]Tourani P, Adams B, Serebrenik A. Code of Conduct in Open Source Projects. In: 2017 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER'17). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2017. p. 24–33.
- [35]Steinmacher I, Conte T, Gerosa MA, Redmiles D. Social Barriers Faced by Newcomers Placing Their First Contribution in Open Source Software Projects. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW 2015. New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2015. p. 1379–1382.
- [36]Ford D, Smith J, Guo PJ, Parnin C. Paradise Unplugged: Identifying Barriers for Female Participation on Stack Overflow. In: Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE'16). FSE 2016. New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2016. p. 846–857.
- [37]Baltes S, Dumani L, Treude C, Diehl S. The Evolution of Stack Overflow Posts: Reconstruction and Analysis. arXiv: 1811.00804 [Preprint]. 2018 [cited 2019 Mar 27]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00804. · arXiv
- [38]Ford D, Lustig K, Banks J, Parnin C. "We Don’t Do That Here": How Collaborative Editing with Mentors Improves Engagement in Social Q&A Communities. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2018. New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2018. Paper 608.
- [39]Steinmacher I, Wiese I, Conte T, Gerosa M, Redmiles D. The Hard Life of Open Source Software Project Newcomers. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE'14). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2014. p. 72–78.
- [40]Steinmacher I, Treude C, Gerosa MA. Let Me In: Guidelines for the Successful Onboarding of Newcomers to Open Source Projects. IEEE Software. 2018; 36: 41– 49. 10.1109/MS.2018.110162131 · DOI · Paper page
- [41]Doherty-Sneddon G, OMalley C, Garrod S, Anderson A, et al Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 1997; 3(2): 105– 125. 10.1037/1076-898x.3.2.105 · DOI
- [42]Gallupe RB, McKeen JD. Enhancing Computer-Mediated Communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a Group Decision Support System for face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information & Management. 1990; 18(1): 1– 13. 10.1016/0378-7206(90)90059-q · DOI
- [43]Nardi BA, Whittaker S. The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work In: Hinds P, Kiesler S, editors. Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002 p. 83– 110.
- [44]O’Malley C, Langton S, Anderson A, Doherty-Sneddon G, Bruce V. Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interaction. Interacting with Computers. 1996; 8(2): 177– 192. 10.1016/0953-5438(96)01027-2 · DOI
- [45]Huppenkothen D, Arendt A, Hogg DW, Ram K, VanderPlas JT, Rokem A. Hack weeks as a model for data science education and collaboration. Proc National Academy of Sciences. 2018; 115(36): 8872– 8877. 10.1073/pnas.1717196115 30127025 PMC6130377 · DOI
- [46]Cherubini M, Venolia G, DeLine R, Ko AJ. Let’s Go to the Whiteboard: How and Why Software Developers Use Drawings. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'07). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2007. p. 557–566.
- [47]Fagerholm F, Guinea AS, Münch J, Borenstein J. The role of mentoring and project characteristics for onboarding in open source software projects. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM'14). New York City, NY: ACM Press; 2014. Article 55.
- [48]Labuschagne A, Holmes R. Do Onboarding Programs Work? In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'15). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2015. p. 381–385.
- [49]Barcomb A, Stol KJ, Riehle D, Fitzgerald B. Why Do Episodic Volunteers Stay in FLOSS Communities? In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'19). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2019. p. 948–954.
- [50]Mäenpää H, Mäkinen S, Kilamo T, Mikkonen T, Männistö T, Ritala P. Organizing for openness: six models for developer involvement in hybrid OSS projects. Journal of Internet Services and Applications. 2018; 9(1): 17 10.1186/s13174-018-0088-1 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generation
Lozhkov, A., Li, R., Allal, L. B., Cassano, F., Lamy-Poirier, J., Tazi, N., Tang, A., Pykhtar, D., Liu, J., Wei, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.19173 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Codes of Conduct in Open Source
Frluckaj, H., & Howison, J. (2024) · Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_17 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sholler, D., Steinmacher, I., Ford, D., Averick, M., Hoye, M., & Wilson, G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Posit Software, PBC (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wilson, Greg
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-09-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e1007296
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC6742214
- OpenAlex
- W2972809368
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
- Keywords
- open source software, open science, communities of practice, newcomer onboarding, contributor retention, mentoring, community building, small and medium-sized projects, volunteer contributors
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Leadership, Computational Biology, Biomedical Research
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