@proceedings {Crowston:2006b,
	title = {Core and periphery in Free/Libre and Open Source software team communications},
	year = {2006},
	address = {Kaua{\textquoteright}i, Hawai{\textquoteright}i, January},
	abstract = {The concept of the core group of developers is important and often discussed in empirical studies of FLOSS projects. This paper examines the question, {\textquotedblleft}how does one empirically distinguish the core?{\textquotedblright} Being able to identify the core members of a FLOSS development project is important because many of the processes necessary for successful projects likely involve core members differently than peripheral members, so analyses that mix the two groups will likely yield invalid results. 
We compare 3 analysis approaches to identify the core: the named list of developers, a Bradford{\textquoteright}s law analysis that takes as the core the most frequent contributors and a social network analysis of the interaction pattern that identifies the core in a core-and-periphery structure. We apply these measures to the interactions around bug fixing for 116 SourceForge projects. The 3 techniques identify different individuals as core members; examination of which individuals are identified leads to suggestions for refining the measures. All 3 measures though suggest that the core of FLOSS projects is a small fraction of the total number of contributors.},
	keywords = {FLOSS},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/CoreAndPeripheryInFreeLibre.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Kangning Wei and Li, Qing and James Howison}
}
@proceedings {Heckman:2006b,
	title = {Emergent decision-making practices in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams},
	year = {2006},
	address = {Milwaukee, WI, 10{\textendash}13 Dec},
	abstract = {We seek to identify work practices that make technology-supported self-organizing distributed (or virtual) teams (TSSODT for short) effective in producing outputs satisfactory to their sponsors, meeting the needs of their members and continuing to function. A particularly important practice for team effectiveness is decision making: are the right decisions made at the right time to get the work done in a way that satisfies team sponsors, keeps contributors happy and engaged, and enables continued team success? In this research-in-progress paper, we report on an inductive qualitative analysis of 120 decision episodes taken by 2 Free/libre Open Source Software development teams. Our analysis revealed differences in decision-making practices that seem to be related to differences in overall team effectiveness.},
	keywords = {Decision-Making, FLOSS},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/Emergent\%20Decision\%20Making\%20Practices\%20In\%20Technology\%20Supported\%20Self\%20O.pdf},
	author = {Heckman, Robert and Kevin Crowston and Li, Qing and Allen, Eileen E. and Eseryel, U. Yeliz and James Howison and Kangning Wei}
}
@proceedings {Crowston:2005,
	title = {Coordination of Free/Libre Open Source Software development},
	year = {2005},
	address = {Las Vegas, NV, USA, December},
	abstract = {The apparent success of free/libre open source software (FLOSS) development projects such as Linux, Apache, and many others has raised the question, what lessons from FLOSS development can be transferred to mainstream software development? In this paper, we use coordination theory to analyze coordination mechanisms in FLOSS development and compare our analysis with existing literature on coordination in proprietary software development. We examined developer interaction data from three active and successful FLOSS projects and used content analysis to identify the coordination mechanisms used by the participants. We found that there were similarities between the FLOSS groups and the reported practices of the proprietary project in the coordination mechanisms used to manage task-task dependencies. However, we found clear differences in the coordination mechanisms used to manage task-actor dependencies. While published descriptions of proprietary software development involved an elaborate system to locate the developer who owned the relevant piece of code, we found that {\textquotedblleft}self-assignment{\textquotedblright} was the most common mechanism across three FLOSS projects. This coordination mechanism is consistent with expectations for distributed and largely volunteer teams. We conclude by discussing whether these emergent practices can be usefully transferred to mainstream practice and indicating directions for future research.},
	keywords = {Coordination, FLOSS},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/Coordination\%20of\%20Free\%20Libre\%20Open\%20Source\%20Software\%20Development.pdf , https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/CoordinationFreeLibreOSSDevSlides.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Kangning Wei and Li, Qing and Eseryel, U. Yeliz and James Howison}
}
