[[まつ本]]
#contents
*概要 [#z6a954b5]
**STC 2008 [#x6c02136]
- URL~
-- http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhncd3jd_89fpszqcx&pli=1~
- Important Dates
-- Paper submission deadline: 3 March 2008
-- Notification to authors: 31 March 2008
-- Final papers due: 21 April 2008
- page limit: 10
**title[#uee49c77]
%%A Comparison Study on the coordination patterns in oss community(仮)%%~
A Comparison Study on the Coordination Between Developers and Users in FOSS Communities
**authors [#j7a3924e]
Shinsuke Matsumoto, Yasutaka Kamei, Masao Ohira and Ken-ichi Matsumoto
*log [#x396e78e]
//-2008// &attachref();~
-2008/05/27 &attachref(stc_2008_cam.ready.pdf); カメラレディver
-2008/03/04 &attachref(stc_2008_final.pdf); 投稿バージョン~
-2008/03/02 &attachref(stc_2008_080302.pdf); 5,6章英語化，4章大平先生修正
-2008/02/28 &attachref(stc_2008_080228.pdf); 3章英語化+大平先生修正，4章糞英語化~
-2008/02/24 &attachref(stc_2008_080224.pdf); 考察，関連研究，その他諸々~
-2008/02/23 &attachref(stc_2008_080223.pdf); 結果~
-2008/02/18 &attachref(stc_2008_080218.pdf); まだ適当~
-2008/02/15 &attachref(stc_2008_080215.pdf); 適当~
*todo [#ib5d9159]
*review results [#ded38e8f]
**reviewer 1 [#v7109148]
-メール使い分けている人をどうするのか？
-定義がいろんな場所に書いてあって読みにくい
-captionを詳しく書いたほうが良い
-------------------- review 1 --------------------
OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (expert)
Is this paper a good candidate for a major presentation with a discussant?: 2 (maybe)
----------------------- REVIEW --------------------
Brief summary:
The authors argue, based a case study of Apache & Netscape, that highly motivated people
who bridge user and developer communities are the most effective way to ensure
success of open source projects. The study considered both the static social structure
of open source projects, and the dynamic change in the structure.
While it is well known that highly motivated developers are the corner stones
of the community, the "bridging behaviour" of key people, between developers
and users, is an interesting phenomenon.
Evaluation:
THe paper offers an interesting case study. The results are somewhat speculative,
but they are potentially interesting and relevant, and suggest further topics
for study and discussion.
There are some problems with the work.
THe authors don't seem to have done any aliasing resolution. People use
multiple email aliases; without resolving these, the data and social
networks are suspect.
Definitions are scattered too much in the paper. There should be a separate
section that defines all the metrics. IN fact, I could not find <k> defined
anywhere. i assumed this was degree?
I suggest using detailed captions. Figures, tables etc are much easier
to follow if they are fully self-describing.
Some other comments:
Figure 7 is very hard to read. Please add a detailed caption.
Page 1, right column, end of second para, last sentence:
"developers who communicated with more developers contributed more to source code" (reword)
section 6.1, para 2 "Highly motivated developers are in constant communication with each other"
**reviewer 2 [#l09b7fc1]
-MLとnewsgroupの差異があやしい
-Pd-uが本当にコーディネータやってるのか？
-送受信関係のネットワークそのものについて
-もっといいメトリクスないのか
-
-dynamic analysisに対するノイズとかの説明は
-文章，特に4.2.2
-------------------- review 2 --------------------
OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (expert)
Is this paper a good candidate for a major presentation with a discussant?: 2 (maybe)
----------------------- REVIEW --------------------
Brief summary:
The manuscript presents a study of Apache and Netscape email
mail-group and newsgroup communication networks. Email addresses that
contribute to both user and developer groups were a particular
target. The links between email addresses are defined as an
immediate post-response relationship in the discussion
threads. Average path length and clustering coefficients are
presented for entire user/developer network, for the user network,
and for the developer network. Only developer networks are
substantially different (presumably at least partially because
Netscape developers are collocated and have alternatives to
newsgroup communication).
The top five emails for Apache and Netscape that participate in
developer and user lists are tracked over time finding that the
Netscape email addresses had uneven participation over the years,
presumably reflecting down-sizing, churn, and eventual demise of the
project.
Evaluation:
Clearly, understanding communication networks in general, and the
roles of developer/user-group-spanning individuals is of interest.
Furthermore, work demonstrates that some of the dramatic differences
between the two projects are also somewhat reflected in some of the
network measures.
There are, however, a number of questions about what exactly the
findings may mean.
First question that jumps out is the differences between mail-groups
(where each message is mailed to each subscriber) and newsgroups
(where anyone interested can read some of the messages at some point
in time). This push versus pull is likely to affect the
reader/poster behavior and may explain at least some of the observed
differences. The presented explanation that it is irrelevant is not
believable.
The second big question relates to the definition of the target
group (posters to user and developer lists). Are they indeed
moderating feature request transition from users to developers as
hypothesized in the paper or are they serving some other roles?
There appears to be no attempt to validate that assumption. What are the
minimal requirements (say number of posts or responses in either or
both lists) to qualify them as moderators of user requirements?
The third big issue relates to exact meaning of the presence of
post-response pair in the newsgroups and in mailing lists. Does it
really establish a social connection (can the prolific responders
recall even a tenth of the email addresses they have helped) or is
it reflecting something else, and if so what?
Without answers to these questions it is hard to judge what the
measures and charts mean, so the remaining comments are minor.
The absence of clear differences in the summary measures for
the entire and user groups is quite disconcerting. The projects are,
after all, drastically different and it is surprising that several
network measures have quite similar values. Could it be that other
measures would capture the difference, or was it an unlikely case
that the particular aspects that these measures captured were
similar? If so why?
The difference in the graph layout charts, while pronounced, are
not likely to be reproducible (both in terms of layout algorithm and,
most importantly, in terms of interpretation).
It is not clear if the results of the dynamic analysis reflect noise
or signal. In any case it is not clear what the findings are, and
even less clear what they may mean.
Text, especially sect. 4.2.2 needs numerous corrections
and clarifications.
*memo [#je7dc789]
リポジトリ: http://tun.naist.jp/svn/Empirical/shinsuke-m/STC_2008/
*ストレスの掃き溜め場 [#ha39f93a]
- 宇和ああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああああ嗚呼ああああああああああああああ嗚呼ああ嗚呼ああああああああああああ -- &new{2008-02-28 (木) 01:19:59};
- in this study wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww we wwwwewewwwe うぃー いんべすてぃげいと ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2008-02-28 (木) 01:24:04};
- ALCが逝ってしまわれた嗚呼嗚呼あああああああざおらるざおらるざおらる -- &new{2008-02-28 (木) 12:12:36};
- 「流氷と共にやってきたアザラシをカレーにしてみました」ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2008-02-28 (木) 17:04:22};
- 「NASAが公開した新型オフロード月面車」ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗおふろーどｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2008-03-02 (日) 03:56:00};
- 盛ｗｗｗｗｗｗりｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ上ｗｗｗｗｗがってきたｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2008-03-04 (火) 03:00:09};
- ｳﾋｮｰーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー -- &new{2008-03-05 (水) 07:24:41};
- ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2009-07-30 (木) 14:36:37};
- あｗｗｗげｗｗｗるｗｗｗなｗｗｗ -- &new{2009-07-30 (木) 15:03:56};
- ごｗｗｗめｗｗｗんｗｗｗなｗｗｗさｗｗｗいｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ -- &new{2009-07-31 (金) 14:00:40};
#comment
![[PukiWiki]](image/wadanyan.png "[PukiWiki]")
