Good governance practices are pivotal to the success of Open Source Software (OSS) projects. However, the decision‐making processes that are made available to stakeholders are at times incomplete and may remain buried and hidden in large amounts of software repository data. This work bridges this gap by unearthing enacted decision‐making processes available for Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs) from 1.54 million email messages that embody decisions made during the evolution of the Python language. This work employs a design science approach in operationalizing a framework called DeMaP miner that is used to discover hidden processes using information retrieval and information extraction techniques. It also uses process mining techniques to visualize the processes, and comparative structural analysis techniques to compare different decision processes. The work identifies a richer set of decision‐making activities than those reported on the Python website and in prior research work (48 new decision activities, 199 new pathways and 6 new stages). The extracted decision process has been positively evaluated by a prominent member of the Python steering council. The extracted process can be used for process compliance checking and process improvement in OSS communities. Additionally, the DeMaP Miner framework can be extended and customized to suit other OSS projects, such as the OpenJDK project.

A sound Decision-Making (DM) process is key to the successful governance of software projects. In many Open Source Software Development (OSSD) communities, DM processes lie buried amongst vast amounts of publicly available data. Hidden within this data lie the rationale for decisions that led to the evolution and maintenance of software products. While there have been some efforts to extract DM processes from publicly available data, the rationale behind 'how' the decisions are made have seldom been explored. Extracting the rationale for these decisions can facilitate transparency (by making them known), and also promote accountability on the part of decisionmakers. This work bridges this gap by means of a large-scale study that unearths the rationale behind decisions from Python development email archives comprising about 1.5 million emails. This paper makes two main contributions. First, it makes a knowledge contribution by unearthing and presenting the rationale behind decisions made. Second, it makes a methodological contribution by presenting a heuristics-based rationale extraction system called Rationale Miner that employs multiple heuristics, and follows a data-driven, bottom-up approach to infer the rationale behind specific decisions (e.g., whether a new module is implemented based on core developer consensus or benevolent dictator's pronouncement). Our approach can be applied to extract rationale in other OSSD communities that have similar governance structures.

No abstract

A sound Decision-Making (DM) process is key to the successful governance of software projects. In many Open Source Software Development (OSSD) communities, DM processes lie buried amongst vast amounts of publicly available data. Hidden within this data lie the rationale for decisions that led to the evolution and maintenance of software products. While there have been some efforts to extract DM processes from publicly available data, the rationale behind how the decisions are made have seldom been explored. Extracting the rationale for these decisions can facilitate transparency (by making them known), and also promote accountability on the part of decision makers. This work bridges this gap by means of a large-scale study that unearths the rationale behind decisions from Python development email archives comprising about 1.5 million emails. This paper makes two main contributions. First, it makes a knowledge contribution by unearthing and presenting the ratio nale behind decisions made. Second, it makes a methodological contribution by presenting a heuristics-based rationale extraction system called Rationale Miner that employs multiple heuristics, and follows a data-driven, bottom-up approach to infer the rationale behind specific decisions (e.g., whether a new module is implemented based on core developer consensus or benevolent dictator s pronouncement). Our approach can be applied to extract rationale in other OSSD communities that have similar governance structures.

Governance has been highlighted as a key factor in the success of an Open Source Software (OSS) project. It is generally seen that in a mixed meritocracy and autocracy governance model, the decision-making (DM) responsibility regarding what features are included in the OSS is shared among members from select roles; prominently the project leader. However, less examination has been made whether members from these roles are also prominent in DM discussions and how decisions are made, to show they play an integral role in the success of the project. We believe that to establish their influence, it is necessary to examine not only discussions of proposals in which the project leader makes the decisions, but also those where others make the decisions. Therefore, in this study, we examine the prominence of members performing different roles in: (i) making decisions, (ii) performing certain social roles in DM discussions (e.g., discussion starters), (iii) contributing to the OSS development social network through DM discussions, and (iv) how decisions are made under both scenarios. We examine these aspects in the evolution of the well-known Python project. We carried out a data-driven longitudinal study of their email communication spanning 20 years, comprising about 1.5 million emails. These emails contain decisions for 466 Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs) that document the language's evolution. Our findings make the influence of different roles transparent to future (new) members, other stakeholders, and more broadly, to the OSS research community. CCS CONCEPTS• Software and its engineering → Open source model.