Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Revolutionizing Newcomers' Onboarding Process in OSS Communities: The Future AI Mentor

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an AI mentor can cover the entire OSS newcomer onboarding process, that newcomers co-designed 32 strategies for it, and that a prototype implementing those strategies was rated useful and easy to use.

desk verdict Solid exploratory design study with a useful catalog of 32 AI-mentor strategies for OSS onboarding, but the effectiveness claim rests on a circular self-report of a non-functional prototype by the same 19 participants who proposed the strategies. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04277 v1 pith:NHVAQA7D submitted 2025-05-07 cs.SE

Xin Tan , Xiao Long , Yinghao Zhu , Lin Shi , Xiaoli Lian , Li Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords opensourcesoftwarenewcomeronboardingAImentordesignfictionparticipatorytechnologyacceptancemodelgoodfirstissuesGitHub
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the full journey of an open-source newcomer, from picking a project to getting a pull request merged, can be mentored by artificial intelligence, and that newcomers themselves can specify how such mentoring should work. Through participatory Design Fiction, 19 OSS newcomers produced 32 design strategies for an "AI mentor" covering every step of the contribution workflow. The authors built OSSerCopilot, a GitHub-integrated prototype implementing the strategies, and found high perceived usefulness, ease of use, and stated willingness to use it. The claim matters because human expert mentoring does not scale, and onboarding dropout is a known threat to open-source sustainability. A literature review adds that current AI research clusters on coding and testing while neglecting the early steps newcomers most want help with, so the strategies point to open research opportunities.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the AI mentor design-strategy set, produced by Design Fiction, a participatory method in which participants watch a short animated fiction set in 2030 and then discuss, at each of nine contribution steps, how an ideal AI should help them. The 32 strategies are the specification, and OSSerCopilot is their implementation: a web plugin integrated into GitHub with a progress bar, a customized project-recommendation form, project-suitability analysis, issue-difficulty sorting, pull-request submission simulation, and feedback summarization. The Technology Acceptance Model, a standard survey model measuring perceived usefulness, ease of use, and self-predicted future use, is the measuring instrument that carries the validation.

What would settle it

Deploy a working OSSerCopilot (or its top-priority strategies) with a random set of real newcomers and compare first-contribution completion and retention against a control group using conventional onboarding resources; no improvement in actual contribution behaviour would refute the claim that the strategies are effective. A broader, more representative survey that finds the 32 strategies miss key newcomer needs would also weaken it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a whole-process AI mentor for OSS onboarding is a designable, acceptable, and currently under-supported idea. The 19 participants described their current onboarding as self-service, relying on search engines and community resources rather than direct community help, and flagged "grasp the project's structure," "discover an interested project," and "identify a task" as the hardest steps. They then articulated 32 design strategies, from personalized project recommendation and issue-difficulty assessment to pull-request submission simulation and reviewer-feedback summarization. The prototype OSSerCopilot put those strategies into a GitHub-sidebar plugin, and participants' Technology Acceptance Model responses showed strong agreement on usefulness and ease of use, with all participants saying they would use it; the authors take this as evidence the strategies are effective. The accompanying literature review found only one paper each for project discovery and contribution-guideline support, against 231 for coding and 129 for testing, identifying the early steps as the largest gap between newcomer expectations and existing research.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 19 participants, mostly male undergraduates from one course and nearby communities, speak for the wider population of OSS newcomers, and that their positive ratings of a prototype they helped design predict real onboarding success.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tool builders can take the 32 strategies as a direct interface specification for an AI mentor, since each strategy maps onto concrete features such as recommendation forms, issue-difficulty ranking, and PR simulation.
  • The highest-value targets are the early steps, discovering a project, grasping its structure, and identifying a task, where newcomer demand is strongest and existing research is thinnest.
  • Newcomers want an integrated assistant inside GitHub rather than a separate tool, and they want it to explain and guide rather than write code for them, preserving their learning.
  • OSS maintainers should treat "good first issue" labels as only a starting point, because AI-assisted difficulty assessment could expand the set of suitable tasks beyond labeled issues.
  • If the strategies are built into practice, expert mentoring workload should drop because the AI absorbs the repetitive parts of onboarding, leaving experts for higher-level review.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest test the paper leaves undone is deployment: give real newcomers a working OSSerCopilot and compare actual first-contribution rates and retention against a control group, since self-reported acceptance can overstate real use.
  • The strategy set implies a research rebalancing: effort on project discovery and repository-level comprehension may produce larger onboarding gains than further code-generation improvements, given how little existing work targets those steps.
  • The issue-difficulty strategy has an isolable prediction: an AI that ranks issues by difficulty should beat current "good first issue" labels at selecting tasks newcomers actually complete, which could be tested on historical issue data.
  • Participants' preference for GitHub integration suggests platform-embedded mentoring will be adopted more readily than standalone tools, but the minority who wanted access to local code files points to a hybrid deployment worth exploring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper aims to explore the potential of an AI mentor to support newcomers throughout the entire OSS onboarding process. Using Design Fiction as a participatory method, the authors conducted sessions with 19 OSS newcomers, elicited 32 design strategies for an AI mentor across nine onboarding steps, and then built a prototype called OSSerCopilot that implements these strategies. They evaluated the prototype through semi-structured interviews and a Technology Acceptance Model survey, and they compared the design strategies against a literature review of 537 papers to identify research gaps. The reported findings are that newcomers face the greatest difficulties in discovering projects, grasping project structure, and identifying tasks; that the prototype's usefulness and ease of use were rated highly by participants; and that early onboarding steps such as project discovery and structure understanding are underexplored in current research.

Significance. If taken as a design-space exploration, this paper makes a useful and novel contribution: it is the first study, to my knowledge, to systematically envision an AI mentor spanning the entire OSS onboarding process, and the 32 design strategies are concrete, actionable, and grounded in a participatory method. The literature review in RQ4 is also valuable as a map of research gaps, and the paper is transparent about its qualitative analysis procedures, information saturation, and data availability. The authors are to be credited for sharing the fiction story, prototype, and codebook. However, the paper's central claim that the design strategies are 'useful and effective' is not supported by the evidence presented, because the validation relies on self-reported perceptions of a non-functional prototype by the same participants who proposed the strategies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 and Section 4.3.3] The validation of the design strategies is circular. The 19 participants who proposed the 32 strategies in Phase I are essentially the same participants who rated the prototype in Phase II (Section 3.2.2 states that all participants except P5 joined the prototype feedback sessions). These participants evaluated a prototype that implements their own elicited ideas, which means the high TAM ratings (all usefulness items over 88% agreement, and S1 at 100%) partly confirm the participants' own earlier aspirations. Because Section 3.2.1 explicitly states that the prototype 'simulates the entire newcomer onboarding process' and is demonstrated with a single PyTorch example, rather than being a functioning AI mentor, the TAM results cannot establish that the strategies would improve real onboarding outcomes such as time-to-first-contribution, task selection quality, or newcomer retention. An evaluation by independent participants, or a baseline comparison, or objective task-performance measures is needed to support the effectiveness claim.
  2. [Abstract, Section 4.3.3, and Section 6] The wording 'demonstrating the relevance and effectiveness of the proposed strategies' (Section 6) and 'which suggests the design strategies are effective' (Abstract) overreaches the evidence. The data support only that the co-designing participants perceived the prototype as useful and easy to use. Since the prototype is a simulation and the evaluation is a perception study, the conclusion should be reframed as evidence of perceived usefulness and intention to use, not realized effectiveness. This is a load-bearing issue because the stated contribution of the paper is the effectiveness of the strategies.
  3. [Section 5 (Threats to Validity)] The Threats to Validity section discusses generalizability, information saturation, and literature collection, but it does not address the most significant threat to the RQ3 conclusion: having the same participants validate their own design proposals, nor the absence of objective outcome measures. The 'Reliability of results' subsection emphasizes the TAM reliability check and coding procedures, but peripheral validation steps do not mitigate the structural circularity of the Phase II evaluation. The authors should explicitly acknowledge that the prototype evaluation is a self-confirmation check and therefore can only be interpreted as a refinement of the elicited strategies, not as a test of their real-world effectiveness.
  4. [Table 1 and Section 3.1.3] The sample is narrow for the generalizability claim implicit in the paper's conclusions. Of the 19 participants, 14 are undergraduate students, 17 are male, and 13 have at most two commits; most were recruited from a single university OSS course and local communities. While the paper acknowledges platform generalizability in Section 5, it does not address how the demographic and experience distribution might bias the elicited strategies toward the needs of novice students rather than the broader OSS newcomer population. This matters because the literature-gap analysis in RQ4 is only as useful as the representativeness of the strategy set; the authors should either temper the population-level conclusions or provide additional evidence of transferability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3.1] The prototype name is misspelled as 'OSSerCopliot' in the paragraph beginning 'We implemented our prototype as a Web plugin'; it should be 'OSSerCopilot'.
  2. [Section 4.2.2, 'Identify a Task'] The phrase 'conducing a more comprehensive difficulty assessment' contains a typo; it should read 'conducting'.
  3. [Section 4.3.2, Figure 4] The radar chart in Figure 4 compares expectation scores (average ranking scores, 1-9 scale from Section 4.2.1) with satisfaction ratings (Likert scale, 1-5 scale from Section 4.3.2). Because these variables use different scales, the visual overlap may be misleading. The authors should either normalize the two scales or clarify that the figure is only a qualitative comparison.
  4. [Section 4.2.2, 'Identify a Task'] The text mentions that participants use 'GFI websites' to search for issues, but no citation or reference is provided for these websites; adding a citation or a footnote would improve traceability.
  5. [Section 3.3 (Phase III)] The literature review methodology is based on Google Scholar searches with the top 100 papers per keyword, which is not a fully reproducible systematic mapping. Although the authors acknowledge this limitation in Section 5, reporting the exact search dates and keyword combinations in the supplemental material would improve the reproducibility of the RQ4 gap analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase II validation is partly circular: the same participants who proposed the 32 design strategies rated a prototype built from those strategies, so the positive TAM ratings largely restate the participants' own design wishes.

  1. other [Section 3.2 (Phase II), Section 4.3 (RQ3), Section 4.3.3, and Section 6.]
    "After completing the prototype, we invited 19 participants to provide feedback via online meetings. ... This phase aims to validate our interpretation of the design strategies from Phase I. Thus, we developed a prototype and collected participants' perceptions. ... all participants agreed or strongly agreed that they will use OSSerCopilot if it is available in the future (S1)."

    The evaluators in Phase II are the same participants who proposed the 32 strategies in Phase I (18 of the 19 joined), and the prototype is explicitly built from those strategies. Their positive TAM ratings (all usefulness items over 88% agreement; S1 at 100% agreement) therefore measure whether the participants approve of a mockup of their own elicited wishes, not whether the strategies independently improve onboarding. The abstract and Section 6 convert this same-source approval into 'the design strategies are effective,' so the claimed validation reduces to the input preference data rather than providing an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's RQ4 literature review is external and non-circular: the design strategies are compared against published work, and the identified research gaps are independent evidence. The self-citations to the authors' prior GFI studies are background context, not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The core circularity is confined to Phase II: the prototype is implemented from the strategies, and the TAM survey is administered to the same participants who elicited the strategies in Phase I, making their approval a self-confirmation loop. The threats-to-validity section discusses platform generalizability and literature coverage but does not address this same-source validation or the absence of objective onboarding measures. Because the central claim that the 32 strategies are 'effective' rests on this self-referential evidence, a score of 6 is warranted; the elicitation of strategies and the gap analysis retain independent content, so the paper is not wholly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study rests on four domain assumptions, mainly about the representativeness of the small participant group and the transferability of self-reported preferences to real-world design. There are no fitted numerical parameters and no newly postulated physical or technical entities. The central claim depends on the assumption that design fiction responses from 19 participants, mostly male undergraduates, capture durable needs of the heterogeneous OSS newcomer population.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participants can reliably envision future AI capabilities and articulate their needs in a design fiction session.
    The entire RQ2 relies on participants' speculative self-reports as a source of design requirements; this assumption is acknowledged in Section 3.1 but not independently verified.
  • domain assumption A sample of 19 participants, mostly male undergraduate students, is representative of the broader OSS newcomer population.
    Section 3.1.3 reports 89% male, 74% undergraduate; the paper notes this in threats to validity but still generalizes to OSS newcomers at large.
  • domain assumption GitHub is representative of the platforms where OSS newcomers onboard, so findings from a GitHub-integrated prototype transfer to other communities.
    Section 3.2.1 and Threats to Validity state the prototype is a GitHub plugin and that generalization to other platforms requires future work.
  • domain assumption Information saturation was reached after four sessions, implying the 32 strategies are comprehensive.
    Section 3.1.4 asserts saturation without formal stopping criteria.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revolutionizing Newcomers' Onboarding Process in OSS Communities: The Future AI Mentor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHVAQA7D

@misc{pith2026250504277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revolutionizing Newcomers' Onboarding Process in OSS Communities: The Future AI Mentor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHVAQA7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04277}
}
read the original abstract

Onboarding newcomers is vital for the sustainability of open-source software (OSS) projects. To lower barriers and increase engagement, OSS projects have dedicated experts who provide guidance for newcomers. However, timely responses are often hindered by experts' busy schedules. The recent rapid advancements of AI in software engineering have brought opportunities to leverage AI as a substitute for expert mentoring. However, the potential role of AI as a comprehensive mentor throughout the entire onboarding process remains unexplored. To identify design strategies of this ``AI mentor'', we applied Design Fiction as a participatory method with 19 OSS newcomers. We investigated their current onboarding experience and elicited 32 design strategies for future AI mentor. Participants envisioned AI mentor being integrated into OSS platforms like GitHub, where it could offer assistance to newcomers, such as ``recommending projects based on personalized requirements'' and ``assessing and categorizing project issues by difficulty''. We also collected participants' perceptions of a prototype, named ``OSSerCopilot'', that implemented the envisioned strategies. They found the interface useful and user-friendly, showing a willingness to use it in the future, which suggests the design strategies are effective. Finally, in order to identify the gaps between our design strategies and current research, we conducted a comprehensive literature review, evaluating the extent of existing research support for this concept. We find that research is relatively scarce in certain areas where newcomers highly anticipate AI mentor assistance, such as ``discovering an interested project''. Our study has the potential to revolutionize the current newcomer-expert mentorship and provides valuable insights for researchers and tool designers aiming to develop and enhance AI mentor systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Research Design et al. [66] first analyzed the resolution of GFIs, identifying 14 newcomer challenges including understanding, implementing and testing. Several studies [44, 48] have examined systematic biases that challenge newcomers in OSS communities, with gender bias standing out in these male￾dominated spaces [44, 48]. In view of these barriers, various theories and strategies have been proposed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Difficulty Level of Different Steps of Newcomers’ Onboarding Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Participants’ Expectations for AI Mentor’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Homepage of Prototype A B C D E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Self-predicted Future Use Usefulness of OSSerCopilot. Most participants found OSSerCopilot useful. The detailed results are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shaosong Ou Alexander Hars. 2002. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. Interna- tional journal of electronic commerce 6, 3 (2002), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2002.11044241

    work page arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    AC Bajpai, Irene M Calus, and JA Fairley. 1992. Descriptive statistical techniques. In Methods of environmental data analysis. Springer, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2920-6_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-011-2920-6_1 1992

  3. [3]

    Sogol Balali, Umayal Annamalai, Hema Susmita Padala, Bianca Trinkenreich, Marco A Gerosa, Igor Steinmacher, and Anita Sarma. 2020. Recommending tasks to newcomers in oss projects: How do mentors handle it?. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412569.3412571

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Sogol Balali, Igor Steinmacher, Umayal Annamalai, Anita Sarma, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Newcomers’ barriers... is that all? an analysis of mentors’ and newcomers’ barriers in OSS projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27 (2018), 679–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9310-8

    doi:10.1007/s10606-018-9310-8 2018

  5. [5]

    Aakash Bansal, Sakib Haque, and Collin McMillan. 2021. Project-Level Encoding for Neural Source Code Summarization of Subroutines. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) . 253–264. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICPC52881.2021.00032

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Lingfeng Bao, Xin Xia, David Lo, and Gail C Murphy. 2019. A large scale study of long-time contributor prediction for github projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 6 (2019), 1277–1298. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019. 2918536

    doi:10.1109/tse.2019 2019

  7. [7]

    Titus Barik, Rahul Pandita, Justin Middleton, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2016. Designing for dystopia: software engineering research for the post-apocalypse. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering . 924–927. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2983986

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Christian Bird, Denae Ford, Thomas Zimmermann, Nicole Forsgren, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Travis Lowdermilk, and Idan Gazit. 2022. Taking Flight with Copilot: Early insights and opportunities of AI-powered pair-programming tools. Queue 20, 6 (2022), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582083

    doi:10.1145/3582083 2022

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    J Martin Bland and Douglas G Altman. 1997. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj 314, 7080 (1997), 572. https: //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098

    2014

  3. [11]

    Mark Blythe and Enrique Encinas. 2016. The Co-ordinates of design fiction: Extrapolation, irony, ambiguity and magic. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work . 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2957276.2957299

    2016

  4. [12]

    Edward G Carmines. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences/Sage (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Chunyang Chen, Ting Su, Wenhe Li, Yang Liu, and Lihua Xu. 2019. StoryDroid: Automated Generation of Storyboard for Android Apps. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00070

    2019

  6. [14]

    Pei-Yu (Peggy) Chi, Sen-Po Hu, and Yang Li. 2018. Doppio: Tracking UI Flows and Code Changes for App Development. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Robert E Cole. 2001. From continuous improvement to continuous innovation. Quality Management Journal 8, 4 (2001), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2001.11918977

    2001

  8. [16]

    Paul Coulton, Joseph Lindley, Miriam Sturdee, and Michael Stead. 2017. Design fiction as world building. InProceedings of the 3nd Biennial Research Through Design Conference . 1–16

    2017

  9. [17]

    Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, and Andrea Wiggins. 2008. Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 44, 2 (2008), 1–35. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2089125.2089127

    2008

  10. [18]

    Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    PyTorch Developer. 2024. An Example of PyTorch Issue. https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/130861 Accessed: 2024-08-28

    2024

  12. [20]

    Juri Di Rocco, Davide Di Ruscio, Claudio Di Sipio, Phuong Nguyen, and Riccardo Rubei. 2020. TopFilter: An Approach to Recommend Relevant GitHub Topics. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) (Bari,...

    2020

  13. [21]

    James Dominic, Jada Houser, Igor Steinmacher, Charles Ritter, and Paige Rodeghero. 2020. Conversational bot for newcomers onboarding to open source projects. In Proceedings of the ieee/acm 42nd international conference on software engineering workshops. 46–50. https://doi.org/...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2005. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14 (2005), 323–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9000-1

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    Omar Elazhary, Margaret-Anne Storey, Neil Ernst, and Andy Zaidman. 2019. Do as i do, not as i say: Do contribution guidelines match the github contribution process?. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 286–290. https://doi...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Fabian Fagerholm, Alejandro S Guinea, Jürgen Münch, and Jay Borenstein. 2014. The role of mentoring and project characteristics for onboarding in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and mea...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Joseph Feller and Brian Fitzgerald. 2002. Understanding open source software development . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. https://doi.org/10.5555/513726

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    Shepherd, Igor Wiese, Christoph Treude, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher

    Felipe Fronchetti, David C. Shepherd, Igor Wiese, Christoph Treude, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher

  19. [27]

    D Randy Garrison, Martha Cleveland-Innes, Marguerite Koole, and James Kappelman. 2006. Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The internet and higher education 9, 1 (2006), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 2017. Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Siw Elisabeth Hove and Bente Anda. 2005. Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’05) . IEEE, 10–pp. https://doi.org/10.1109/METRICS.2005.24

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Yuekai Huang, Junjie Wang, Song Wang, Zhe Liu, Dandan Wang, and Qing Wang. 2021. Characterizing and predicting good first issues. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Robert Husák, Jan Kofroň, and Filip Zavoral. 2023. Slicito: Using Computational Notebooks for Program Comprehension. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 31st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) . 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICPC58990.2023.00019

    2023

  24. [32]

    Alvin D Jeffery, Laurie L Novak, Betsy Kennedy, Mary S Dietrich, and Lorraine C Mion. 2017. Participatory design of probability-based decision support tools for in-hospital nurses. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 24, 6 (2017), 1102–1110. https://doi.org...

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Carlos Jensen, Scott King, and Victor Kuechler. 2011. Joining free/open source software communities: An analysis of newbies’ first interactions on project mailing lists. In 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences . IEEE, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS...

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Naoki Kobayakawa and Kenichi Yoshida. 2017. How github contributing. md contributes to contributors. In 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) , Vol. 1. IEEE, 694–696. https://doi.org/10. 1109/COMPSAC.2017.139

    2017

  27. [35]

    Amanda Lee, Jeffrey C Carver, and Amiangshu Bosu. 2017. Understanding the impressions, motivations, and barriers of one time code contributors to FLOSS projects: a survey. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 187–197. https://doi...

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Sheen S Levine and Michael J Prietula. 2014. Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organi- zation Science 25, 5 (2014), 1414–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0872

    2014

  29. [37]

    Nandor Licker and Andrew Rice. 2019. Detecting Incorrect Build Rules. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . 1234–1244. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00125

    2019

  30. [38]

    Honestly, they’re not just made up

    Joseph Lindley, Paul Coulton, and Emmett L Brown. 2016. Peer Review and Design Fiction:“Honestly, they’re not just made up. ”.CHI Extended Abstracts (Alt. CHI). ACM (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Christopher Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the 40t...

    2018

  32. [40]

    Case Study Research in Education

    Sharan B Merriam. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education. ". ERIC

    1998

  33. [41]

    Vitaliy Mezhuyev, Mostafa Al-Emran, Mohd Arfian Ismail, Luigi Benedicenti, and Durkahpuvanesvari AP Chandran

  34. [42]

    Jhemeson Silva Mota, Marcio Vinicius Okimoto, Edna Dias Canedo, and Jhonatan Silva Mota. 2021. Google summer of code gender diversity: An analysis of the last 4 editions. Anais do Computer on the Beach 12 (2021), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.14210/cotb.v12.p117-124

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Michael Muller, Steven Ross, Stephanie Houde, Mayank Agarwal, Fernando Martinez, John Richards, Kartik Tala- madupula, and Justin D Weisz. 2022. Drinking chai with your (AI) programming partner: A design fiction about generative AI for software engineering. In HAI-GEN Workshop...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Hema Susmita Padala, Christopher Mendez, Felipe Fronchetti, Igor Steinmacher, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilder- brand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Margaret Burnett, et al . 2020. How gender-biased tools shape newcomer experiences in oss projects. IEEE Transact...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Michael Quinn Patton. 2014. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage publica- tions

    2014

  38. [46]

    Melina Petsolari, Seray B Ibrahim, and Petr Slovak. 2024. Socio-technical Imaginaries: Envisioning and Understanding AI Parenting Supports through Design Fiction. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642619

    2024

  39. [47]

    Huilian Sophie Qiu, Yucen Lily Li, Susmita Padala, Anita Sarma, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. The signals that potential contributors look for when choosing open-source projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359224

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Huilian Sophie Qiu, Alexander Nolte, Anita Brown, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In 2019 ieee/acm 41st international conference on software engineering (icse) . I...

    2019

  41. [49]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2023. User perspectives on ethical challenges in Human-AI co-creativity: A design fiction study. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/3591196. 3593364

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Riemenschneider, Bill C

    Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, Bill C. Hardgrave, and Fred D. Davis. 2002. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE transactions on Software Engineering 28, 12 (2002), 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2002.1158287

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Steven I Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Michael Muller, and Justin D Weisz. 2023. The programmer’s assistant: Conversational interaction with a large language model for software development. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Int...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Daniel Russo. 2024. Navigating the complexity of generative ai adoption in software engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3652154

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization.Quality & quantity 52 (2018), 1893–1907. https...

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Walt Scacchi. 2007. Free/open source software development. In Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering . 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1145/1287624.1287689

    2007

  47. [55]

    Bianca Shibuya and Tetsuo Tamai. 2009. Understanding the process of participating in open source communities. In 2009 ICSE Workshop on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development . IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/FLOSS.2009.5071352

    2009

  48. [56]

    Forrest Shull, Janice Singer, and Dag IK Sjøberg. 2007. Guide to advanced empirical software engineering . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5

    2007 doi

  49. [57]

    Jefferson O Silva, Igor S Wiese, Igor Steinmacher, and Marco A Gerosa. 2017. Students’ engagement in open source projects: an analysis of Google Summer of Code. InProceedings of the XXXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131151.3131156

    2017

  50. [58]

    Igor Steinmacher, Ana Paula Chaves, Tayana Uchoa Conte, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2014. Preliminary empirical identification of barriers faced by newcomers to Open Source Software projects. In 2014 Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. IEEE, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Uchoa Conte, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884...

    2016

  52. [60]

    Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurelio Graciotto Silva, Marco Aurelio Gerosa, and David F Redmiles. 2015. A systematic literature review on the barriers faced by newcomers to open source software projects. Information and Software Technology 59 (2015), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Igor Steinmacher, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Let me in: Guidelines for the successful onboarding of newcomers to open source projects. IEEE Software 36, 4 (2018), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018. 110162131

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Igor Steinmacher, Igor Wiese, Ana Paula Chaves, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2013. Why do newcomers abandon open source software projects?. In 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/CH...

    2013

  55. [63]

    Bruce Sterling. 2009. Cover story design fiction.interactions 16, 3 (2009), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1516016.1516021

    2009

  56. [64]

    Anselm Strauss. 1997. Grounded theory in practice . Sage

    1997

  57. [65]

    Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques. (1998)

    1998

  58. [66]

    Xin Tan, Yiran Chen, Haohua Wu, Minghui Zhou, and Li Zhang. 2023. Is it enough to recommend tasks to newcomers? understanding mentoring on good first issues. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1109/I...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Xin Tan and Minghui Zhou. 2019. How to communicate when submitting patches: An empirical study of the Linux kernel. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359210

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Xin Tan, Minghui Zhou, and Zeyu Sun. 2020. A first look at good first issues on GitHub. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering . 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409746

    2020

  61. [69]

    Xin Tan, Minghui Zhou, and Li Zhang. 2023. Understanding mentors’ engagement in OSS communities via google summer of code. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 5 (2023), 3106–3130. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2023. 3242415

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Wei Tao, Yucheng Zhou, Wenqiang Zhang, and Yu Cheng. 2024. MAGIS: LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework for GitHub Issue Resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17927 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.17927

    2024 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    Copilot Workspace Development Team. 2024. Copilot Workspace. https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-workspace Accessed: 2024-08-28

    2024

  64. [72]

    Maria Tomprou, Laura Dabbish, Robert E Kraut, and Fannie Liu. 2019. Career mentoring in online communities: Seeking and receiving advice from an online community. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/329...

    2019

  65. [73]

    Mairieli Wessel, Ahmad Abdellatif, Igor Wiese, Tayana Conte, Emad Shihab, Marco A Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher

  66. [74]

    Wikipedia contributors. 2024. GitHub. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub Accessed: 2024-08-28

    2024

  67. [75]

    Richmond Y Wong. 2021. Using design fiction memos to analyze ux professionals’ values work practices: A case study bridging ethnographic and design futuring methods. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    2021

  68. [76]

    What is Fair Shipping, Anyway?

    Yiying Wu, Sus Lyckvi, and Virpi Roto. 2019. "What is Fair Shipping, Anyway?" Using Design Fiction to Raise Ethical Awareness in an Industrial Context. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300666

    2019

  69. [77]

    Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yinlin Deng, Soren Dunn, and Lingming Zhang. 2024. Agentless: Demystifying llm-based software engineering agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01489 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01489

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    Wenxin Xiao, Hao He, Weiwei Xu, Xin Tan, Jinhao Dong, and Minghui Zhou. 2022. Recommending good first issues in github oss projects. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1830–1842. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3510196

    2022

  71. [79]

    John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. 2024. Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15793 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.15793

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    Yunwen Ye and Kouichi Kishida. 2003. Toward an understanding of the motivation of open source software developers. In 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICSE.2003.1201220

    2003 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Minghui Zhou. 2019. Onboarding and retaining of contributors in FLOSS ecosystem. In Towards Engineering Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) Ecosystems for Impact and Sustainability: Communications of NII Shonan Meetings . Springer, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-...

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    Minghui Zhou and Audris Mockus. 2012. What make long term contributors: Willingness and opportunity in OSS community. In 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 518–528. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICSE.2012.6227164 Received 2024-09-12; accepted ...

    2012

  75. [2019]

    IEEE Access 7 (2019), 101073–101085

    The acceptance of search-based software engineering techniques: An empirical evaluation using the technology acceptance model. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 101073–101085. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2917913 Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., Vol. 2, No. FSE, Article FSE050. Publication d...

    2019

  76. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering

    Bots for pull requests: The good, the bad, and the promising. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering. 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3512765

  77. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (San Francisco, CA, USA) (ESEC/FSE 2023)

    Do CONTRIBUTING Files Provide Information about OSS Newcomers’ Onboarding Barriers?. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (San Francisco, CA, USA) (ESEC/FSE 2023). Association for...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.