Beyond Code: Empirical Insights into How Team Dynamics Influence OSS Project Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11692v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 08:16:09 GMT
• Title: Beyond Code: Empirical Insights into How Team Dynamics Influence OSS Project Selection
• Authors: Shashiwadana Nirmani, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Mojtaba Shahin, Xiao Liu,
• Abstract summary: Open-source software (OSS) development relies on effective collaboration among distributed contributors.<n>This study investigates how team dynamics within OSS communities influence project selection and how these preferences vary across contributors' motivations.
• Score: 7.504007895842893
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Open-source software (OSS) development relies on effective collaboration among distributed contributors. Yet, current OSS project recommendation systems primarily emphasize technical attributes, overlooking the collaboration and community aspects that influence contributors' decisions to join and remain in projects. This study investigates how team dynamics within OSS communities influence project selection and how these preferences vary across contributors' motivations. We conducted an online survey with 198 OSS practitioners, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses to capture contributors' perceptions of team dynamics. The results reveal that communication-related team dynamics such as responsiveness, tone, and clarity of replies are consistently prioritized across practitioners. However, the relative importance of these team dynamics differs according to contributors' motivations. For instance, practitioners motivated by gaining reputation or networking preferred inclusive project communities that encouraged diverse participation. These findings highlight that understanding how team dynamics align with contributors' motivations provides valuable insights into practitioners' project selection behaviour. Those insights can inform the design of future human-aware project recommendation systems that better account for social collaboration quality and motivational fit.

Related papers

• Beyond Brainstorming: What Drives High-Quality Scientific Ideas? Lessons from Multi-Agent Collaboration [59.41889496960302]
  This paper investigates whether structured multi-agent discussions can surpass solitary ideation.<n>We propose a cooperative multi-agent framework for generating research proposals.<n>We employ a comprehensive protocol with agent-based scoring and human review across dimensions such as novelty, strategic vision, and integration depth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T15:59:18Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Exploring the Untapped: Student Perceptions and Participation in OSS [9.212408099557573]
  Open Source Software (OSS) projects offer valuable opportunities to train the next generation of software engineers while benefiting projects and society as a whole.<n>This study aims to investigate the relationship between students' interest in contributing to OSS and their perceptions of barriers and motivational factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T19:00:06Z)
• "Ohhh, He's the Boss!": Unpacking Power Dynamics Among Developers, Designers, and End-Users in FLOSS Usability [15.427821536893108]
  We explore how power of different FLOSS stakeholders manifests and can be mediated during collaboration.<n>We conducted eight design workshops with different combinations of key FLOSS stakeholders.<n>Our results contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the power dynamics among FLOSS stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T23:52:03Z)
• Closing the Evaluation Gap: Developing a Behavior-Oriented Framework for Assessing Virtual Teamwork Competency [6.169364905804677]
  This study develops a behavior-oriented framework for assessing virtual teamwork competencies among engineering students.<n>Using focus group interviews combined with the Critical Incident Technique, the study identified three key dimensions.<n>The resulting framework provides a foundation for more effective assessment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T08:12:27Z)
• A Task-Centric Perspective on Recommendation Systems [32.44458308850838]
  We analyze RecSys task formulations, emphasizing key components such as input-output structures, temporal dynamics, and candidate item selection.<n>We explore the balance between task specificity and model generalizability, highlighting how well-defined task formulations serve as the foundation for robust evaluation and effective solution development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T06:10:22Z)
• Assessing Teamwork Dynamics in Software Development Projects [2.823770863747379]
  This study investigates teamwork dynamics in student software development projects through a mixed-method approach.<n>We analyzed individual contributions across six project phases, comparing self-reported and actual contributions to measure discrepancies.<n>Findings reveal that teams with minimal contribution discrepancies achieved higher project grades and exam pass rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T08:23:46Z)
• Code Collaborate: Dissecting Team Dynamics in First-Semester Programming Students [3.0294711465150006]
  The study highlights the collaboration trends that emerge as first-semester students develop a 2D game project. Results indicate that students often slightly overestimate their contributions, with more engaged individuals more likely to acknowledge mistakes. Team performance shows no significant variation based on nationality or gender composition, though teams that disbanded frequently consisted of lone wolves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T11:42:05Z)
• Understanding the Factors Influencing Self-Managed Enterprises of Crowdworkers: A Comprehensive Review [49.623146117284115]
  This paper investigates the shift in crowdsourcing towards self-managed enterprises of crowdworkers (SMECs) It reviews the literature to understand the foundational aspects of this shift, focusing on identifying key factors that may explain the rise of SMECs. The study aims to guide future research and inform policy and platform development, emphasizing the importance of fair labor practices in this evolving landscape.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T14:33:16Z)
• Unveiling Diversity: Empowering OSS Project Leaders with Community Diversity and Turnover Dashboards [51.67585198094836]
  CommunityTapestry is a dynamic real-time community dashboard. It presents key diversity and turnover signals that we identified from the literature. It helped project leaders identify areas of improvement and gave them actionable information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T22:12:57Z)
• The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice [64.29355073494125]
  This article aims to ground what we dub the "participatory turn" in AI design by synthesizing existing theoretical literature on participation. We articulate empirical findings concerning the current state of participatory practice in AI design based on an analysis of recently published research and semi-structured interviews with 12 AI researchers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T05:30:42Z)
• Designing Disaggregated Evaluations of AI Systems: Choices, Considerations, and Tradeoffs [42.401239658653914]
  We argue that a deeper understanding of the choices, considerations, and tradeoffs involved in designing disaggregated evaluations will better enable researchers, practitioners, and the public to understand the ways in which AI systems may be underperforming for particular groups of people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-10T14:26:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.