Managing the Bazaar: Commercialization and peripheral participation in mature, community-led Free/Open source software projects Evangelia Berdou A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Media and Communications London School of Economics and Political Science June 2007 I, Evangelia Berdou, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signature Abstract The thesis investigates two fundamental dynamics of participation and collaboration in mature, community-led Free/Open Source (F/OS) software projects - commercialization and peripheral participation. The aim of the thesis is to examine whether the power relations that underlie the F/OS model of development are indicative of a new form of power relations supported by ICTs. Theoretically, the thesis is located within the Communities of Practice (CoP) literature and it draws upon Michel Foucault's ideas about the historical and relational character of power. It also mobilizes, to a lesser extent, Erving Goffman's notion of `face-work'. This framework supports a methodology that questions the rationality of how F/OS is organized and examines the relations between employed coders and volunteers, experienced and inexperienced coders, and programmers and non- programmers. The thesis examines discursive and structural dimensions of collaboration and employs quantitative and qualitative methods. Structural characteristics are considered in the light of arguments about embeddedness. The thesis contributes insights into how the gift economy is embedded in the exchange economy and the role of peripheral contributors. The analysis indicates that community-integrated paid developers have a key role in project development, maintaining the infrastructure aspects of the code base. The analysis suggests that programming and non-programming contributors are distinct in their make-up, priorities and rhythms of participation, and that learning plays an important role in controlling access. The results show that volunteers are important drivers of peripheral activities, such as translation and documentation. The term `autonomous peripherality' is used to capture the unique characteristics of these activities. These findings support the argument that centrality and peripherality are associated with the division of labour, which, in turn, is associated with employment relations and frameworks of institutional support. The thesis shows how the tensions produced by commercialization and peripheral participation are interwoven with values of meritocracy, ritual and strategic enactment of the idea of community as well as with tools and techniques developed to address the emergence of a set of problems specific to management and governance. These are characterized as `technologies of communities'. It is argued that the emerging topology of F/OS participation, seen as a `relational meshwork', is indicative of a redefinition of the relationship between sociality and economic production within mature, community-led F/OS projects. Acknowledgements The PhD often appears as a solitary undertaking. One thing that PhD students, however, learn very quickly, is that impossible to maintain the degree of focus and dedication required for its completion without the help of many people. My supervisor, Professor Robin Mansell, provided her unfailing support and guidance, while challenging me to move beyond my intellectual comfort zones. I would not have been able to do this without her. I am indebted to the Greek State Scholarships Foundation which funded the first three years of my study. I would also like to thank the DBE and OPAALS European projects, and especially Dr. Paolo Dini, that supported my research over the last two years. I am grateful for the time and openness of all the F/OS contributors who participated in my research. I would like to especially thank Thomas Zander, Federico Mena Quintero, Scott Wheeler, Telsa Gwynne, Luis Villa, Christian Schaller, Gerard Briscoe, Yiota Tsatsou and Ellen Helsper, for their generous assistance in various aspects of my study. Dr. Gordana Uzelac and Elizabeth Van Couvering were there for me through the best, and the worst, at late nights and early mornings. Ute, Marianna and Constantina believed in me before I did. Lastly, I am forever grateful to my husband, Alexandros, and my parents for their love and support. London, June 2007 Table of contents List of Figures 7 List of Tables 7 I Introduction 9 1.1 Overview 9 1.2 The F/OS model of development: briefhistory and major characteristics IO 1.3 F/OS: changingperceptions, unanswered questions 12 1.4 Sigm tcance of the research 20 1.5 Primary case studies and methodology 21 1.6 Thesis Outline 23 1.7 Conclusion 24 2 Theoretical and conceptual framework 25 2.1 Chapter overview 25 2.2 The Communities ofPracticeperspective 25 2.3 Foucault and the study ofpower in Free/Open Source 32 2.4 Enacting structures: Goffman, face-work and the negotiation of image in Free/Open source 43 2.5 Meshworks, Cathedrals and Bazaars 5o 2.6 Conceptual Framework 53 3 Methodology 56 3.1 Chapter overview 56 3.2 Overview of the research design 56 3.3 Selection ofprimary case studies: the GNOME and KDE projects 59 3.4 Phase I: Interviews 6i 3.5 Phase 2: Nested Case Studies 65 3.6 Analysis of qualitative data 69 3.7 Phase 3: 2uantitative examination ofpatterns of contribution and maintenance 74 3.8 Analysis of quantitative data 8o 3.9 Conclusion 83 4 Communities and the economy: commercialization ofmature F/OS projects 84 4.1 Chapter overview 84 4.2 F/OS communities and the economy 84 4.3 Paid developers in community managed F/OS projects 86 4.4 Gstreamer and Fluendo SL: At the intersection of company and community 93 4.5 The GNOME Bounty Hunt: testing a new interface between companies and communities 99 4.6 Conclusion 104 5 Peripheral participation, learning and the division of labour in F/OS communities 110 5.1 Chapter overview rio 5.2 Between communities and practices: peripherality, learning and power in F/OS projects r10 5.3 Intercoderperipherality: new developers (newbies) learning and participation 112 5.4 Autonomous peripheral participation and development 117 5.5 Autonomous peripherality in context 123 5.6 Conclusion 126 6 Commercialization and peripherality tested: A quantitative examination ofpatterns ofcontribution and engagement in mature, community led F/OS projects 132 6.1 Chapter overview 132 6.2 Working hypotheses for the quantitative examination ofpatterns of contribution and involvement 132 6.3 The GNOME community 134 6.4 The KDE community 15o 6.5 Conclusion 165 7 Technologies of communities and the relational meshwork: Principal findings and theoretical implications ofthe research 170 7 r Chapter overview 170 7.2 Commercialization and peripheral participation in mature community-led F/OS projects: Recapitulation and discussion ofempirical findings 170 7.3 Technologies of communities and the relational meshwork: wider theoretical implications ofthe research 18o 7.4 Alternative frameworks of interpretation and the baselinefor comparing the F/OS model i88 7.5 Conclusion 192 8 Conclusions 195 8.i Chapter overview 195 8.2 Theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions 195 8.3 Limitations ofthe study 208 8.4 Avenues forfuture research 210 8.5 Concluding remarks 213 Bibliography 215 Appendix 226 7 List of Figures Figure 3-1 Codes on commercialization generated through Atlas Ti 71 Figure 3-2 : Codes on peripheral participation generated through Atlas Ti 72 Figure 4-I: Commercialization key research themes and their interconnections 107 Figure 5-1: Peripherality key research themes and their interconnections 535 Figure 6-1: Breakdown of GNOME Foundation respondents according to their employment status (volunteers and affiliated) 136 Figure 6-2: Analysis of involvement of paid and volunteer GNOME contributors in principal areas of development at the short-term level 139 Figure 6-3: Distribution of effort by group at the short-term level 140 Figure 6-4: Frequency of participation of volunteers and affiliated in GUADECs held between 2003- 05 143 Figure 6-5: Distribution of GNOME contributors according to number of modules maintained. 146 Figure 6-6: Distribution of modules maintained by affiliated, non-affiliated and by affiliated and non-affiliated GNOME developers 147 Figure 6-7: Analysis of modules maintained by affiliated and non-affiliated GNOME contributors in principal areas of development. 148 Figure 6-8: Breakdown of KDE e.V. respondents according to their employment status 152 Figure 6-9: Analysis of involvement of paid and volunteer contributors in principal areas of development in the short-term 154 Figure 6-1o: Distribution of effort by group at the short-term level 155 Figure 6-11: Frequency of participation in Akademy for volunteers and affiliated 1S7 Figure 6-12: Distribution of number of modules maintained by volunteer and affiliated members of KDE e.V 158 Figure 6-13: Distribution of KDE contributors according to number of modules maintained 16o Figure 6-14 : Distribution of modules maintained by affiliated, non-affiliated, and affiliated and non- affiliated KDE maintainers 161 Figure 6-15: Analysis of modules maintained by affiliated and non-affiliated KDE developers in the principal areas of development 162 Figure 6-16: Distribution of number of modules maintained by non-affiliated and affiliated KDE developers 163 Figure 7-1:Insights