arXiv subjects

Matthew Gaughan

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew Gaughan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Linguistic Similarity Within Centralized FLOSS Development

When free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) stewards centralize project development, they potentially undermine project sustainability and impact how contributors talk to each other. To study the relationship between steward-centralized development and contributor discussion, we compared the development of three Wikimedia platform features that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) built in MediaWiki. In a mixed-methods multi-case comparison, we used repository mining, linguistic style features, and principal component analysis to track MediaWiki feature development and issue discussions. Contrary to both our intuition and prior work, there were no identifiable differences in the linguistic style of WMF-affiliates and external contributors, even when feature development was guided by WMF contributions. From these results, we offer two provocations to the study of collaborative FLOSS development: (1) stewards dominate development according to their own use of specific project functionality; (2) centralized project development does not entail hierarchical language within project discussions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

The Introduction of README and CONTRIBUTING Files in Open Source Software Development

README and CONTRIBUTING files can serve as the first point of contact for potential contributors to free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) projects. Prominent open source software organizations such as Mozilla, GitHub, and the Linux Foundation advocate that projects provide community-focused and process-oriented documentation early to foster recruitment and activity. In this paper we investigate the introduction of these documents in FLOSS projects, including whether early documentation conforms to these recommendations or explains subsequent activity. We use a novel dataset of FLOSS projects packaged by the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and conduct a quantitative analysis to examine README (n=4226) and CONTRIBUTING (n=714) files when they are first published into projects' repositories. We find that projects create minimal READMEs proactively, but often publish CONTRIBUTING files following an influx of contributions. The initial versions of these files rarely focus on community development, instead containing descriptions of project procedure for library usage or code contribution. The findings suggest that FLOSS projects do not create documentation with community-building in mind, but rather favor brevity and standardized instructions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Engineering Formality and Software Risk in Debian Python Packages

While free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) is critical to global computing infrastructure, the maintenance of widely-adopted FLOSS packages is dependent on volunteer developers who select their own tasks. Risk of failure due to the misalignment of engineering supply and demand -- known as underproduction -- has led to code base decay and subsequent cybersecurity incidents such as the Heartbleed and Log4Shell vulnerabilities. FLOSS projects are self-organizing but can often expand into larger, more formal efforts. Although some prior work suggests that becoming a more formal organization decreases project risk, other work suggests that formalization may increase the likelihood of project abandonment. We evaluate the relationship between underproduction and formality, focusing on formal structure, developer responsibility, and work process management. We analyze 182 packages written in Python and made available via the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. We find that although more formal structures are associated with higher risk of underproduction, more elevated developer responsibility is associated with less underproduction, and the relationship between formal work process management and underproduction is not statistically significant. Our analysis suggests that a FLOSS organization's transformation into a more formal structure may face unintended consequences which must be carefully managed.

cs.SE↗