Uncovering the Periphery: A Qualitative Survey of Episodic Volunteering in Free/Libre and Open Source Software Communities

Abstract

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) communities are composed, in part, of volunteers, many of whom contribute infrequently. However, these infrequent volunteers contribute to the sustainability of FLOSS projects, and should ideally be encouraged to continue participating, even if they cannot be persuaded to contribute regularly. Infrequent contributions are part of a trend which has been widely observed in other sectors of volunteering, where it has been termed "episodic volunteering" (EV). Previous FLOSS research has focused on the Onion model, differentiating core and peripheral developers, with the latter considered as a homogeneous group. We argue this is too simplistic, given the size of the periphery group and the myriad of valuable activities they perform beyond coding. Our exploratory qualitative survey of 13 FLOSS communities investigated what episodic volunteering looks like in a FLOSS context. EV is widespread in FLOSS communities, although not specifically managed. We suggest several recommendations for managing EV based on a framework drawn from the volunteering literature. Also, episodic volunteers make a wide range of value-added contributions other than code, and they should neither be expected nor coerced into becoming habitual volunteers.

Why Do Episodic Volunteers Stay in FLOSS Communities?

“…Satisfaction and community commitment are both strongly linked with retention, in agreement with previous findings [38], [56], [59], [86]. There is a widespread belief in FLOSS communities that episodic volunteers are not emotionally attached [27] which should be reconsidered in light of our findings, which shows that community commitment is the construct most strongly associated with retention.…”

“…As we build our theoretical model (see Sec. III), we draw on these models, which also informed our recent exploratory study that focused on practices for managing EV in FLOSS communities [27].…”

“…Surveys of FLOSS contributors have also inclined toward considering a small number of projects [42] or a group of large and mature projects [12]. The majority of FLOSS communities are, however, small [46], and even small projects can have episodic contributors [27]. Similarly, the general EV literature concerning retention has largely focused on single case studies (e.g., [26], [47]).…”

“…These constructs are: contributor benefit motivations, social norms, psychological sense of community, satisfaction, and community commitment. A previous study used this as a conceptual framework for a qualitative survey of episodic participation in FLOSS [27].…”

“…Social Norms: The term social norms refers to the pressure that participants experience as a result of how those in their environment view the volunteering activity [23]. In a FLOSS context, little research has been conducted on the effects of social norms on participation, although an exploratory study suggested that non-code contributors in particular are influenced by social norms [27]. The majority of work situating FLOSS contributors within their environment has looked at cultural factors [52] or organizational culture [53].…”