Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Curtis Atkisson
dblp:87/10883
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-3575-6871ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 87% Software maintenance and evolution · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Do We Run How We Say We Run? Formalization and Practice of Governance in OSS Communities · CHI 2024 |
Empirical software engineering › open source software
open source governance |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Do We Run How We Say We Run? Formalization and Practice of Governance in OSS Communities · CHI 2024 |
Software maintenance and evolution
software ecosystems |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Do We Run How We Say We Run? Formalization and Practice of Governance in OSS Communities · CHI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
semantic pipeline · 0.8mailing list analysis · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Do We Run How We Say We Run? Formalization and Practice of Governance in OSS CommunitiesabstractOpen Source Software (OSS) communities often resist regulation typical of traditional organizations. Yet formal governance systems are being increasingly adopted among communities, particularly through non-profit project-sponsoring foundations. Our study looks at the Apache Software Foundation Incubator program and 208 of the projects it has supported. We assemble a scalable, semantic pipeline to discover and analyze the governance behavior of projects from their mailing lists. We then investigate the relationship of such behavior to what the formal policies prescribe, through their own governance priorities and how their members internalize them. Our findings indicate that a greater amount of policy over a governed topic doesn’t elicit more governed activity on that topic, but does predict greater internalization by community members. Moreover, alignment of community operations with foundation governance, be it dedicating their governance focus or adopting policy along topics seeing greater policy-making, has limited association with project outcomes. Mahasweta Chakraborti, Curtis Atkisson, Stefan Stanciulescu, Vladimir Filkov, Seth Frey |
CHI | 2 |