Including Everyone, Everywhere: Understanding Opportunities and Challenges of Geographic Gender-Inclusion in OSS

Abstract

The gender gap is a significant concern facing the software industry as the development becomes more geographically distributed. Widely shared reports indicate that gender differences may be specific to each region. However, how complete can these reports be with little to no research reflective of the Open Source Software (OSS) process and communities software is now commonly developed in? Our study presents a multi-region geographical analysis of gender inclusion on GitHub. This mixed-methods approach includes quantitatively investigating differences in gender inclusion in projects across geographic regions and investigate these trends over time using data from contributions to 21,456 project repositories. We also qualitatively understand the unique experiences of developers contributing to these projects through a survey that is strategically targeted to developers in various regions worldwide. Our findings indicate that gender diversity is low across all parts of the world, with no substantial difference across regions. However, there has been statistically significant improvement in diversity worldwide since 2014, with certain regions such as Africa improving at faster pace. We also find that most motivations and barriers to contributions (e.g., lack of resources to contribute and poor working environment) were shared across regions, however, some insightful differences, such as how to make projects more inclusive, did arise. From these findings, we derive and present implications for tools that can foster inclusion in open source software communities and empower contributions from everyone, everywhere.

Evolving collaboration, dependencies, and use in the Rust Open Source Software ecosystem

“…Specifically, 74,829 packages had links to either platform. Of these links, 51,657 were unique and 46,895 of them could be cloned from either GitHub (44,893), GitLab (1,498) or other git platforms (504). The inclusion of data from GitLab represents an important extension over the most widely used databases in OSS research, GHTorrent and GH Archive, which only use data from GitHub.…”

Evolving Collaboration, Dependencies, and Use in the Rust Open Source Software Ecosystem

“…We do so in the following way: we discard name attributes and hash (via MD5 with a random salt) email address prefixes and GitHub/Gitlab logins. Researchers interested in studying social or demographic characteristics of developers, such as gender 37,38 , geography [39][40][41] , or both 42 , could adapt our approach to data collection and analyse these attributes. However, they should consider potential ethical issues that arise when Figure 2.…”

ReBOC: Recommending Bespoke Open Source Software Projects to Contributors

“…For the offline validation of our tool, we computed recommendations on all contributors and calculated the hit ratio percentage for the top k recommended projects lists (e.g., Top 5,10,15,20). We calculated the hit ratio as the number of users whose target project is listed in the top k list divided by the number of total users.…”

“…Although these are helpful, there is still a key question we have yet to explore: how do we get projects access to the contributors they need to keep growing and evolving? Literature has shown that there are multiple roads to success in OSS [9] and that will to help others is a strong motivator [10]. Our goal is help connect contributors interested in having this type of impact with the opportunities to do so.…”

“…Empirical investigations into the challenges of experts recommending tasks to newcomers include challenges identifying newcomer interests, expertise, and previous contributions [15]. Likewise, Prana et al propose a project recommendation that considers a variety of community engagement quality, contributor demographic, and social activity metrics [10]. In a similar vein, Qiu et al take mixed-methods approach to understanding the attributes that contributors look for when identifying these projects finding that a combination of easily quantifiable activity and more challenging to assess factors of openness played a significant role in selection [16].…”