Understanding One Time Contributors to FLOSS Projects

Amand Lee, Jeffrey C. Carver, and Amiangshu Bosu


This page presents the coding scheme used in the study. For each question, we used open coding to build the coding scheme. For some of the questions, the coding scheme has two-levels. Note that the total codes for each question could be more than the total respondents because each response could have multiple codes.



Q10 What was your initial impression of the other project members?


Top-level code Second-level code Frequency
Negative 26
Busy 18
Constrained 10
Elitist 14
Not helpful 12
Unfriendly 12
Unresponsive 18
Neutral 76
Don't know, don't remember 14
Other 26
Positive 162
Concise 2
Friendly 70
Helpful 66
Passionate 6
Patient 4
Professional 18
Receptive 6
Responsive 44
Skilled 76



Q12 What motivated you to contribute your patch?


Top-level code Frequency
Add new feature or functionality 42
Curiosity, personal drive or desire 10
Employer 54
Financial 4
Fix bug 188
Other 42
Personal reputation 10
Research 2
Scratch an itch 14
Share with community 72
Solve puzzle 2
Test run 6



Q17 Was patch creation or submission the difficult one, or were both? What was most difficult about them?


Top-level code Frequency
Account creation 6
Lacking documentation 4
Legal issues or agreements 8
Making patch 6
No testing environment 4
Other 4
Reviewers 6
Submission 30



Q24 Were there any barriers or reasons that kept you from continuing to contribute? If so, please list them below.


Top-level code Second-level code Frequency
Barriers 140
Bad attitude of project members 6
Dead-end project 6
Entry Difficulties 18
Ignored 20
Issues with GIT 6
Lack knowledge or experience 18
License 14
Process 40
Time 70
No Barriers 114
Don't use product 24
Employer 24
Fixed bug 16
No intent to become developer 24
Nothing else to contribute 48
Other 24


Last Updated on February 8, 2017 by Jeffrey Carver