@conference {vlas2017evolutionary,
	title = {Evolutionary Software Requirements Factors and their Effect on Open Source Project Attractiveness},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	abstract = {Successful projects effectively manage their requirements.
How the mix of different requirements evolves throughout a
successful project life-cycle is poorly understood. Moreover,
requirements practices may be changing, according to the
authors of the New RE{\textemdash}a model of six critical requirements
factors. The New RE focuses on leveraging existing
components to create new functionality. This practice is also
central to open-source development. Thus, to understand the
proposed New RE model and its relationship to open-source
development, in this study, we analyze over 200 projects from
GitHub.com and compare them with a prior analysis of 31
projects from SourceForge. The results show that many of the
proposed New RE factors are related to project attractiveness,
which is important for open-source project success.},
	url = {http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/41806/1/paper0657.pdf},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper0657.pdf},
	author = {Vlas, Radu and Robinson, William and Vlas, Cristina}
}
@proceedings {1710,
	title = {Data Mining Behavioral Transitions in Open Source Repositories},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {5280-5289},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	abstract = {Open-source repository data can be automatically mined
using sequence mining methods to provide high-level
feedback on project status. GitHub.com projects are
acquired, sequence-mined, clustered, and regressed to
analyze project characteristics. Such results can be presented
to project managers, as part of a display generated by an
automated monitoring system. Such monitoring systems
provide high-level feedback in real-time. This project is a
preliminary step in a larger research project aimed at
understanding and monitoring FLOSS projects using this
process modeling approach. },
	author = {Robinson, William and Tianjie Deng}
}
@proceedings {1271,
	title = {Towards a Unified Definition of Open Source Quality},
	year = {2011},
	note = {"In order to answer the research question, how is quality defined in the FLOSS literature, we performed a literature review."

"we searched Google Scholar for journal articles and conference papers containing the terms {\textquotedblleft}open source{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}quality{\textquotedblright}"

"This process left us with 24 papers, to which we then added 16 from the quality and defect-fixing categories in [34] that met the above stated criteria.
This left us with 40 papers that defined quality and performed some form of empirical validation of that definition."

"there is little consensus in the FLOSS literature when it comes to defining quality."

defect resolution versus modularity: "Defect resolution rates (amount of defects resolved, speed of resolution) are the best way to measure a community{\textquoteright}s commitment to quality, because they recognize that FLOSS is not a static product, but ever evolving. These rates should be calculated per release, and not cumulatively, because the cycle of FLOSS evolution is the release. Researchers should be careful to only include defects and not new feature requests, duplicates, or poorly reported bugs into their calculations.
Modularity is being touted as the main driver of FLOSS quality success, but it needs to be further defined and studied in order to understand how it works."},
	month = {10/2011},
	pages = {17-33},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {Software quality needs to be specified and evaluated in order to determine the success of a development project, but this is a challenge with Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) because of its permanently emergent state. This has not deterred the growth of the assumption that FLOSS is higher quality than traditionally developed software, despite of mixed research results. With this literature review, we found the reason for these mixed results is that that quality is being defined, measured, and evaluated differently. We report the most popular definitions, such as software structure measures, process measures, such as defect fixing, and maturity assessment models. The way researchers have built their samples has also contributed to the mixed results with different project properties being considered and ignored. Because FLOSS projects are evolving, their quality is too, and it must be measured using metrics that take into account its community{\textquoteright}s commitment to quality rather than just its software structure. Challenges exist in defining what constitutes a defect or bug, and the role of modularity in affecting FLOSS quality.},
	keywords = {literature review, measurement, open source, quality, Software},
	author = {Ruiz, Claudia and Robinson, William}
}
