QuESo: A quality model for open source software ecosystems

© 2014 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes,creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.Open source software has witnessed an exponential growth in the last two decades and it is playing an increasingly important role in many companies and organizations leading to the formation of open source software ecosystems. In this paper we present a quality model that will allow the evaluation of those ecosystems in terms of their relevant quality characteristics such as health or activeness. To design this quality model we started by analysing the quality measures found during the execution of a systematic literature review on open source software ecosystems and, then, we classified and reorganized the set of measures in order to build a solid quality model.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Open source software ecosystems quality analysis from data sources

Background: Open source software (OSS) and software ecosystems (SECOs) are two consolidated research areas in software engineering. The adoption of OSS by firms, governments, researchers and practitioners has been increasing rapidly in the last decades, and in consequence, they find themselves in a new kind of ecosystem composed by software communities,foundations, developers and partners, namely Open Source Software Ecosystem (OSSECO). In order to perform a systematic quality evaluation of a SECO, it is necessary to define certain types of concrete elements. This means that measures and evaluations should be described (e.g., through thresholds or expert judgment). The quality evaluation of an OSSECO may serve several purposes, for example: adopters of the products of the OSSECO may want to know about the liveliness of the OSSECO (e.g., recent updates); software developers may want to know about the activeness (e.g., how many collaborators are involved and how active they are); and the OSSECO community itself to know about the OSSECO health (e.g., evolving in the right direction). However, the current approaches for evaluating software quality (even those specific for open source software) do not cover all the aspects relevant in an OSSECO from an ecosystem perspective. Goal: The main goal of this PhD thesis is to support the OSSECO quality evaluation by designing a framework that supports the quality evaluation of OSSECOs. Methods: To accomplish this goal, we have used and approach based on design science methodology by Wieringa [1] and the characterization of software engineering proposed by M. Shaw [2], in order to produce a set of artefacts to contribute in thequality evaluation of OSSECOs and to learn about the effects of using these artefacts in practice. Results: We have conducted a systematic mapping to characterize OSSECOs and designed the QuESo framework (a framework to evaluate the OSSECO quality) composed by three artifacts: (i) QuESo-model, a quality model for OSSECOs; (ii) QuESoprocess, a process for conducting OSSECO quality evaluations using the QuESo-model; and (iii) QuESo-tool, a software component to support semi-automatic quality evaluation of OSSECOs. Furthermore, this framework has been validated with a case study on Eclipse. Conclusions: This thesis has contributed to increase the knowledge and understanding of OSSECOs, and to support the qualityevaluation of OSSECOs. [ntecedentes: el software de código abierto (OSS, por sus siglas en inglés) y los ecosistemas de software (SECOs, por sus siglas en inglés) son dos áreas de investigación consolidadas en ingeniería de software. La adopción de OSS por parte de empresas, gobiernos, investigadores y profesionales se ha incrementado rápidamente en las últimas décadas, y, en consecuencia, todos ellos hacen parte de un nuevo tipo de ecosistema formado por comunidades de software, fundaciones, desarrolladores y socios denominado ecosistema de software de código abierto. (OSSECO, por sus siglas en inglés)). Para realizar una evaluación sistemática de la calidad de un SECO, es necesario definir ciertos tipos de elementos concretos. Esto significa que tanto las métricas como las evaluaciones deben ser descritos (por ejemplo, a través de datos históricos o el conocimiento de expertos). La evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO puede ser de utilidad desde diferentes perspectivas, por ejemplo: los que adoptan los productos del OSSECO pueden querer conocer la vitalidad del OSSECO (por ejemplo, el número de actualizaciones recientes); los desarrolladores de software pueden querer saber sobre la actividad del OSSECO (por ejemplo, cuántos colaboradores están involucrados y qué tan activos son); incluso la propia comunidad del OSSECO para conocer el estado de salud del OSSECO (por ejemplo, si está evolucionando en la dirección correcta). Sin embargo, los enfoques actuales para evaluar la calidad del software (incluso aquellos específicos para el software de código abierto) no cubren todos los aspectos relevantes en un OSSECO desde una perspectiva ecosistémica. Objetivo: El objetivo principal de esta tesis doctoral es apoyar la evaluación de la calidad de OSSECO mediante el diseño de un marco de trabajo que ayude a la evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO. Métodos: Para lograr este objetivo, hemos utilizado un enfoque basado en la metodología design science propuesta por Wieringa [1]. Adicionalmente, nos hemos basado en la caracterización de la ingeniería de software propuesta por M. Shaw [2], con el fin de construir un conjunto de artefactos que contribuyan en la evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO y para conocer los efectos del uso de estos artefactos en la práctica. Resultados: Hemos realizado un mapeo sistemático para caracterizar los OSSECOs y hemos diseñado el marco de trabajo denominado QuESo (es un marco de trabajo para evaluar la calidad de los OSSECOs). QuESo a su vez está compuesto por tres artefactos: (i) QuESo-model, un modelo de calidad para OSSECOs; (ii) QuESo-process, un proceso para llevar a cabo las evaluaciones de calidad de OSSECOs utilizando el modelo QuESo; y (iii) QuESo-tool, un conjunto de componentes de software que apoyan la evaluación de calidad de los OSSECOs de manera semiautomática. QuESo ha sido validado con un estudio de caso sobre Eclipse. Conclusiones: esta tesis ha contribuido a aumentar el conocimiento y la comprensión de los OSSECOs, y tambien ha apoyado la evaluación de la calidad de los OSSECOsPostprint (published version

Open source software ecosystems quality analysis from data sources

Background: Open source software (OSS) and software ecosystems (SECOs) are two consolidated research areas in software engineering. The adoption of OSS by firms, governments, researchers and practitioners has been increasing rapidly in the last decades, and in consequence, they find themselves in a new kind of ecosystem composed by software communities,foundations, developers and partners, namely Open Source Software Ecosystem (OSSECO). In order to perform a systematic quality evaluation of a SECO, it is necessary to define certain types of concrete elements. This means that measures and evaluations should be described (e.g., through thresholds or expert judgment). The quality evaluation of an OSSECO may serve several purposes, for example: adopters of the products of the OSSECO may want to know about the liveliness of the OSSECO (e.g., recent updates); software developers may want to know about the activeness (e.g., how many collaborators are involved and how active they are); and the OSSECO community itself to know about the OSSECO health (e.g., evolving in the right direction). However, the current approaches for evaluating software quality (even those specific for open source software) do not cover all the aspects relevant in an OSSECO from an ecosystem perspective. Goal: The main goal of this PhD thesis is to support the OSSECO quality evaluation by designing a framework that supports the quality evaluation of OSSECOs. Methods: To accomplish this goal, we have used and approach based on design science methodology by Wieringa [1] and the characterization of software engineering proposed by M. Shaw [2], in order to produce a set of artefacts to contribute in thequality evaluation of OSSECOs and to learn about the effects of using these artefacts in practice. Results: We have conducted a systematic mapping to characterize OSSECOs and designed the QuESo framework (a framework to evaluate the OSSECO quality) composed by three artifacts: (i) QuESo-model, a quality model for OSSECOs; (ii) QuESoprocess, a process for conducting OSSECO quality evaluations using the QuESo-model; and (iii) QuESo-tool, a software component to support semi-automatic quality evaluation of OSSECOs. Furthermore, this framework has been validated with a case study on Eclipse. Conclusions: This thesis has contributed to increase the knowledge and understanding of OSSECOs, and to support the qualityevaluation of OSSECOs. [ntecedentes: el software de código abierto (OSS, por sus siglas en inglés) y los ecosistemas de software (SECOs, por sus siglas en inglés) son dos áreas de investigación consolidadas en ingeniería de software. La adopción de OSS por parte de empresas, gobiernos, investigadores y profesionales se ha incrementado rápidamente en las últimas décadas, y, en consecuencia, todos ellos hacen parte de un nuevo tipo de ecosistema formado por comunidades de software, fundaciones, desarrolladores y socios denominado ecosistema de software de código abierto. (OSSECO, por sus siglas en inglés)). Para realizar una evaluación sistemática de la calidad de un SECO, es necesario definir ciertos tipos de elementos concretos. Esto significa que tanto las métricas como las evaluaciones deben ser descritos (por ejemplo, a través de datos históricos o el conocimiento de expertos). La evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO puede ser de utilidad desde diferentes perspectivas, por ejemplo: los que adoptan los productos del OSSECO pueden querer conocer la vitalidad del OSSECO (por ejemplo, el número de actualizaciones recientes); los desarrolladores de software pueden querer saber sobre la actividad del OSSECO (por ejemplo, cuántos colaboradores están involucrados y qué tan activos son); incluso la propia comunidad del OSSECO para conocer el estado de salud del OSSECO (por ejemplo, si está evolucionando en la dirección correcta). Sin embargo, los enfoques actuales para evaluar la calidad del software (incluso aquellos específicos para el software de código abierto) no cubren todos los aspectos relevantes en un OSSECO desde una perspectiva ecosistémica. Objetivo: El objetivo principal de esta tesis doctoral es apoyar la evaluación de la calidad de OSSECO mediante el diseño de un marco de trabajo que ayude a la evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO. Métodos: Para lograr este objetivo, hemos utilizado un enfoque basado en la metodología design science propuesta por Wieringa [1]. Adicionalmente, nos hemos basado en la caracterización de la ingeniería de software propuesta por M. Shaw [2], con el fin de construir un conjunto de artefactos que contribuyan en la evaluación de la calidad de un OSSECO y para conocer los efectos del uso de estos artefactos en la práctica. Resultados: Hemos realizado un mapeo sistemático para caracterizar los OSSECOs y hemos diseñado el marco de trabajo denominado QuESo (es un marco de trabajo para evaluar la calidad de los OSSECOs). QuESo a su vez está compuesto por tres artefactos: (i) QuESo-model, un modelo de calidad para OSSECOs; (ii) QuESo-process, un proceso para llevar a cabo las evaluaciones de calidad de OSSECOs utilizando el modelo QuESo; y (iii) QuESo-tool, un conjunto de componentes de software que apoyan la evaluación de calidad de los OSSECOs de manera semiautomática. QuESo ha sido validado con un estudio de caso sobre Eclipse. Conclusiones: esta tesis ha contribuido a aumentar el conocimiento y la comprensión de los OSSECOs, y tambien ha apoyado la evaluación de la calidad de los OSSECO

Source Data for the Focus Area Maturity Model for Software Ecosystem Governance

We define a software ecosystem as a set of organizations collaboratively serving a market for software and services. Typically these ecosystems are underpinned by a common technology, such as an extendable software platform. This data set supports the article that describes the Software Ecosystem Governance Maturity Model (SEG−M2) [50]. The model has the goal to support software ecosystem orchestrators in the management and governance of the actors in their ecosystems in a structured way. Through a critical structured literature review, 168 practices have been collected. These practices have been evaluated through six case studies at software ecosystem orchestrators. The practices are described with a practice code, a practice name, a practice description, required success conditions, the person responsible for the practice, and the associated literature where the practice was identified

Summary of the First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE1)

Challenges related to development, deployment, and maintenance of reusable software for science are becoming a growing concern. Many scientists’ research increasingly depends on the quality and availability of software upon which their works are built. To highlight some of these issues and share experiences, the First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE1) was held in November 2013 in conjunction with the SC13 Conference. The workshop featured keynote presentations and a large number (54) of solicited extended abstracts that were grouped into three themes and presented via panels. A set of collaborative notes of the presentations and discussion was taken during the workshop. Unique perspectives were captured about issues such as comprehensive documentation, development and deployment practices, software licenses and career paths for developers. Attribution systems that account for evidence of software contribution and impact were also discussed. These include mechanisms such as Digital Object Identifiers, publication of “software papers”, and the use of online systems, for example source code repositories like GitHub. This paper summarizes the issues and shared experiences that were discussed, including cross-cutting issues and use cases. It joins a nascent literature seeking to understand what drives software work in science, and how it is impacted by the reward systems of science. These incentives can determine the extent to which developers are motivated to build software for the long-term, for the use of others, and whether to work collaboratively or separately. It also explores community building, leadership, and dynamics in relation to successful scientific software

Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops

This open access book constitutes papers from the 5 research workshops, the poster presentations, as well as two panel discussions which were presented at XP 2021, the 22nd International Conference on Agile Software Development, which was held online during June 14-18, 2021. XP is the premier agile software development conference combining research and practice. It is a unique forum where agile researchers, practitioners, thought leaders, coaches, and trainers get together to present and discuss their most recent innovations, research results, experiences, concerns, challenges, and trends. XP conferences provide an informal environment to learn and trigger discussions and welcome both people new to agile and seasoned agile practitioners. The 18 papers included in this volume were carefully reviewed and selected from overall 37 submissions. They stem from the following workshops: 3rd International Workshop on Agile Transformation 9th International Workshop on Large-Scale Agile Development 1st International Workshop on Agile Sustainability 4th International Workshop on Software-Intensive Business 2nd International Workshop on Agility with Microservices Programmin

An Application Programming Interface (API) framework for digital government

The digital transformation of society obliges governments to evolve towards increasingly complex digital environments. These environments require strong coordination efforts to ensure a synergistic integration of different systems and actors. Application programming interfaces (APIs) are the connective nodes of digital components and thus instrumental enablers of this integration. Yet today, the integration of digital components is often done on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, disregarding the potential value-added for the whole digital environment. This work proposes a framework for a cohesive API adoption in government environments. The framework is distilled from the analysis of an extensive literature review conducted on government API adoption practices to date. The output of this analysis identifies actions to be taken by governments to improve their API infrastructure and related organisational processes. The framework offers 12 ‘proposals’ arranged around four organisational pillars, namely, policy support, platforms and ecosystems, people, and processes. Actions are then organised into the three levels of organisational management, i.e. strategic, tactical and operational. Motivations, implementation details and a self-assessment checklist are provided for each of the proposals. Given that the maturity of digital government structures is uneven, the framework has been designed to be flexible enough to help governments identify the specific actions they need to focus on. The work outlines the basis of an API maturity assessment tool.JRC.B.6-Digital Econom

Towards evaluation design for smart city development

Smart city developments integrate digital, human, and physical systems in the built environment. With growing urbanization and widespread developments, identifying suitable evaluation methodologies is important. Case-study research across five UK cities - Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Peterborough - revealed that city evaluation approaches were principally project-focused with city-level evaluation plans at early stages. Key challenges centred on selecting suitable evaluation methodologies to evidence urban value and outcomes, addressing city authority requirements. Recommendations for evaluation design draw on urban studies and measurement frameworks, capitalizing on big data opportunities and developing appropriate, valid, credible integrative approaches across projects, programmes and city-level developments

Report on the Second Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2)

This technical report records and discusses the Second Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2). The report includes a description of the alternative, experimental submission and review process, two workshop keynote presentations, a series of lightning talks, a discussion on sustainability, and five discussions from the topic areas of exploring sustainability; software development experiences; credit & incentives; reproducibility & reuse & sharing; and code testing & code review. For each topic, the report includes a list of tangible actions that were proposed and that would lead to potential change. The workshop recognized that reliance on scientific software is pervasive in all areas of world-leading research today. The workshop participants then proceeded to explore different perspectives on the concept of sustainability. Key enablers and barriers of sustainable scientific software were identified from their experiences. In addition, recommendations with new requirements such as software credit files and software prize frameworks were outlined for improving practices in sustainable software engineering. There was also broad consensus that formal training in software development or engineering was rare among the practitioners. Significant strides need to be made in building a sense of community via training in software and technical practices, on increasing their size and scope, and on better integrating them directly into graduate education programs. Finally, journals can define and publish policies to improve reproducibility, whereas reviewers can insist that authors provide sufficient information and access to data and software to allow them reproduce the results in the paper. Hence a list of criteria is compiled for journals to provide to reviewers so as to make it easier to review software submitted for publication as a “Software Paper.

Open source software ecosystems : a systematic mapping

Context: Open source software (OSS) and software ecosystems (SECOs) are two consolidated research areas in software engineering. OSS influences the way organizations develop, acquire, use and commercialize software. SECOs have emerged as a paradigm to understand dynamics and heterogeneity in collaborative software development. For this reason, SECOs appear as a valid instrument to analyze OSS systems. However, there are few studies that blend both topics together. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current state of the art in OSS ecosystems (OSSECOs) research, specifically: (a) what the most relevant definitions related to OSSECOs are; (b) what the particularities of this type of SECO are; and (c) how the knowledge about OSSECO is represented. Method: We conducted a systematic mapping following recommended practices. We applied automatic and manual searches on different sources and used a rigorous method to elicit the keywords from the research questions and selection criteria to retrieve the final papers. As a result, 82 papers were selected and evaluated. Threats to validity were identified and mitigated whenever possible. Results: The analysis allowed us to answer the research questions. Most notably, we did the following: (a) identified 64 terms related to the OSSECO and arranged them into a taxonomy; (b) built a genealogical tree to understand the genesis of the OSSECO term from related definitions; (c) analyzed the available definitions of SECO in the context of OSS; and (d) classified the existing modelling and analysis techniques of OSSECOs. Conclusion: As a summary of the systematic mapping, we conclude that existing research on several topics related to OSSECOs is still scarce (e.g., modelling and analysis techniques, quality models, standard definitions, etc.). This situation calls for further investigation efforts on how organizations and OSS communities actually understand OSSECOs.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft