[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Studying donations and their expenses in open source projects: a case study of GitHub projects collecting donations through open collectives

Published: 01 January 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Operating an open source project requires not only intrinsic motivation (e.g., the joy of participation) but also extrinsic motivation (e.g., financial incentives). Almost 95% of open source projects are no longer maintained after a year. Nowadays, although donations start to play an important role in operating open source projects, there is little knowledge about the characteristics of donors and the usage of donations. A better understanding of the characteristics of donations, their donors, and the usage of donations in open source projects is needed to provide insights to the stakeholders of open source projects to help them operate their projects more sustainably. In this paper, we study the donations that are received through the Open Collective platform (i.e., an online crowdfunding platform) to support open source projects, to understand the characteristics of these donations, their donors, and the usage of these donations. To do so, we investigate 225 GitHub open source projects that received 54,889 donations with a total value of $2,537,281 through the Open Collective platform. We find that: 1) In general, corporate donors tend to donate more money than individual donors in a single donation. However, in a collective, the total donation amount from individual donors is more than corporate donors, suggesting the importance of individual donors. Moreover, individual donors are more likely to redonate to the same collective compared to corporate donors. 2) Non-engineering-related expenses take up to 54.0% of the total number of all expenses that are filtered against donation. For instance, “Web services”, “marketing”, and “travel” expenses are the three most frequent and costly non-engineering-related expense types. For engineering-related expenses, the most frequent expenses are related to development and maintenance. Interestingly, we also observe that 18% of the engineering expenses were spent to propose bounties for addressing issues with a median cost of $95 per proposed bounty. We further analyze the differences between individual-supported collectives (i.e., collectives where more than 80% of their donation amount is from individual donors) and corporate-supported collectives (i.e., collectives where more than 80% of their donation amount is from corporate donors). We observe that corporate-supported collectives tend to receive a higher donation amount than individual-supported collectives and the monthly received donation amounts are positively associated with the levels of community and maintenance activities in corporate-supported collectives. They have no significant difference in terms of popularity (e.g., the number of pull requests) of their associated GitHub projects. Our findings suggest that the stakeholders of GitHub open source projects should try to attract more individual donors. Collectives should not expect to receive a large amount of funds overall from donations unless their projects are very popular or are mainly supported by corporations. Projects should budget for a reasonable amount (e.g., 13% of total funds) of non-engineering expenses (e.g., marketing and traveling).

References

[1]
Androutsellis-Theotokis S, Spinellis D, Kechagia M, Gousios G, et al. Open source software: a survey from 10,000 feet Found Trends Technol Inf Oper Manag 2011 4 3–4 187-347
[2]
Atiq A, Tripathi A (2016) Impact of financial benefits on open source software sustainability. In: International conference on information systems (ICIS), pp 1–10
[3]
Avelino G, Passos L, Hora A, Valente M T (2016) A novel approach for estimating truck factors. In: IEEE 24th international conference on program comprehension (ICPC), pp 1–10
[4]
Bauer DF Constructing confidence sets using rank statistics J Am Stat Assoc 1972 67 339 687-690
[5]
Bissyandé T F, Thung F, Lo D, Jiang L, Réveillère L (2013) Popularity, interoperability, and impact of programming languages in 100,000 open source projects. In: 2013 IEEE 37th annual computer software and applications conference. IEEE, pp 303–312
[6]
Canfora G, Di Penta M, Oliveto R, Panichella S (2012) Who is going to mentor newcomers in open source projects?. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th international symposium on the foundations of software engineering (FSE), pp 1–11
[7]
Coelho J, Valente M T (2017) Why modern open source projects fail. In: Proceedings of the 2017 11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp 186–196
[8]
Daniel WW et al. Applied nonparametric statistics 1978 Boston Houghton Mifflin
[9]
Eghbal N (2016) Roads and bridges: the unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure. Ford Foundation
[10]
Finifter M, Akhawe D, Wagner D (2013) An empirical study of vulnerability rewards programs. In: USENIX Security symposium, pp 273–288
[11]
Gamalielsson J and Lundell B Sustainability of open source software communities beyond a fork: how and why has the libreoffice project evolved? J Syst Softw 2014 89 1 128-145
[12]
GitHub (2019) GitHub Sponsors now supports projects! https://https://github.com/sponsors (last visited: Apr. 11)
[13]
Gwet K et al. Inter-rater reliability: dependency on trait prevalence and marginal homogeneity Stat Methods Inter-Rater Reliab Assess Ser 2002 2 1 1-9
[14]
Hassan A E (2009) Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes. In: IEEE 31st international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE, pp 78–88
[15]
Hata H, Guo M, Babar M A (2017) Understanding the heterogeneity of contributors in bug bounty programs. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, ESEM ’17, pp 223–228
[16]
Izquierdo J L C, Cabot J (2018) The role of foundations in open source projects. In: Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: software engineering in society (ICSE), pp 3–12
[17]
Kanda T, Guo M, Hata H, Matsumoto K (2017) Towards understanding an open-source bounty: Analysis of bountysource. In: IEEE 24th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER), pp 577–578
[18]
Krishnamurthy S and Tripathi AK Monetary donations to an open source software platform Res Policy 2009 38 2 404-414
[19]
Krishnamurthy S, Ou S, and Tripathi AK Acceptance of monetary rewards in open source software development Res Policy 2014 43 4 632-644
[20]
Lee A, Carver J C, Bosu A (2017) Understanding the impressions, motivations, and barriers of one time code contributors to floss projects: a survey. In: IEEE/ACM 39th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 187–197
[21]
Long J D, Feng D, Cliff N (2003) Ordinal analysis of behavioral data. In: Handbook of psychology, pp 635–661
[22]
Maillart T, Zhao M, Grossklags J, and Chuang J Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow? Revisiting Eric Raymond with bug bounty programs J Cybersecurity 2017 3 2 81-90
[23]
Munaiah N, Meneely A (2016) Vulnerability severity scoring and bounties: why the disconnect?. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on software analytics. SWAN 2016, pp 8–14
[24]
Nakasai K, Hata H, Onoue S, Matsumoto K (2017) Analysis of donations in the eclipse project. In: 8th International workshop on empirical software engineering in practice (IWESEP), pp 18–22
[25]
Nakasai K, Hata H, and Matsumoto K Are donation badges appealing?: a case study of developer responses to eclipse bug reports IEEE Softw 2018 36 3 22-27
[26]
Overney C, Meinicke J, Kästner C, Vasilescu B (2020) How to not get rich: an empirical study of donations in open source. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 1209–1221
[27]
Paredes H, Barroso J, Bigham J P (2018) All (of us) can help: inclusive crowdfunding research trends and future challenges. In: IEEE 22nd international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD). IEEE, pp 796–801
[28]
Pinto G, Steinmacher I, Gerosa M A (2016) More common than you think: an in-depth study of casual contributors. In: IEEE 23rd international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER), vol 1, pp 112–123
[30]
Solomon J, Ma W, Wash R (2015) Don’t wait! How timing affects coordination of crowdfunding donations. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW), pp 547–556
[31]
Steinmacher I, Conte T U, Treude C, Gerosa M A (2016) Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In: IEEE/ACM 38th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 273–284
[32]
Steinmacher I, Pinto G, Wiese I S, Gerosa M A (2018) Almost there: a study on quasi-contributors in open source software projects. In: Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering, (ICSE), pp 256–266
[33]
Valiev M, Vasilescu B, Herbsleb J (2018) Ecosystem-level determinants of sustained activity in open-source projects: a case study of the pypi ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp 644–655
[34]
Yamashita K, Kamei Y, McIntosh S, Hassan AE, and Ubayashi N Magnet or sticky? Measuring project characteristics from the perspective of developer attraction and retention J Inf Process 2016 24 2 339-348
[35]
Ye Y, Kishida K (2003) Toward an understanding of the motivation open source software developers. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 419–429
[36]
Yukizawa U, Tsunoda M, Tahir A (2019) Please help! a preliminary study on the effect of social proof and legitimization of paltry contributions in donations to OSS. In: 26th IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER), pp 609–613
[37]
Zhao M, Grossklags J, Chen K (2014) An exploratory study of white hat behaviors in a web vulnerability disclosure program. In: Proceedings of ACM workshop on security information workers (SIW), pp 51–58
[38]
Zhao H, Jin B, Liu Q, Ge Y, Chen E, Zhang X, Xu T (2019) Voice of charity: prospecting the donation recurrence & donor retention in crowdfunding. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE)
[39]
Zhou J, Wang S, Bezemer C -P, Zou Y, Hassan A E (2020) Studying the association between bountysource bounties and the issue-addressing likelihood of github issue reports. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE)

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Sustaining Maintenance Labor for Healthy Open Source Software Projects through Human Infrastructure: A Maintainer PerspectiveProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686667(37-48)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • (2024)"My GitHub Sponsors profile is live!" Investigating the Impact of Twitter/X Mentions on GitHub SponsorsProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639127(1-12)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
  • (2023)A Survey of Learning-based Automated Program RepairACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363197433:2(1-69)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Studying donations and their expenses in open source projects: a case study of GitHub projects collecting donations through open collectives
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Empirical Software Engineering
    Empirical Software Engineering  Volume 27, Issue 1
    Jan 2022
    985 pages

    Publisher

    Kluwer Academic Publishers

    United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2022
    Accepted: 28 September 2021

    Author Tags

    1. Donations
    2. Open source
    3. GitHub

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Sustaining Maintenance Labor for Healthy Open Source Software Projects through Human Infrastructure: A Maintainer PerspectiveProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686667(37-48)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
    • (2024)"My GitHub Sponsors profile is live!" Investigating the Impact of Twitter/X Mentions on GitHub SponsorsProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639127(1-12)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
    • (2023)A Survey of Learning-based Automated Program RepairACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363197433:2(1-69)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
    • (2022)How to characterize the health of an Open Source Software project? A snowball literature review of an emerging practiceProceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration10.1145/3555051.3555067(1-12)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2022

    View Options

    View options

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media