Balancing Requirements of Decision and Action: Decision-Making and Implementation in Free/Open Source Software Projects
Niels Taubert · PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) · 2008
This article deals with decision-making processes about new development aims in Free/Open Source software (FOSS) projects.It focuses on the question how community driven projects manage to not only make decisions but also implement them successfully.Following the approach of Nils Brunsson, the requirements of (rational) decision-making and action are somewhat antagonistic: On the one hand, rationality of decision-making implies extensive evaluation of alternatives and arguments that can lead to an uncertainty as to which of the alternative will be chosen.On the other hand, a good basis for collective action is established when uncertainty is reduced and consistent expectations exist as to what kind of action will be performed.Corroborating on an empirical analysis of a decision-making process and interviews conducted with FOSS developers, three mechanisms of ending a discussion are identified.The paper concludes evaluating to what extent each of these mechanisms serves the requirements for decision-making and action.* The research for this paper has been carried out in a PhD project within the Research Training Group 'Genese, Strukturen und Folgen von Wissenschaft und Technik' at the 'Institute of Science and Technology Studies' (Bielefeld University).The paper is largely indebted to the discussion of an earlier version of the paper in the 'Methodenwerkstatt' held by Alfons Bora and to Alfons Bora's advice.I would like to thank the DFG for supporting the PhDproject with a doctoral grant and I would also like to thank two anonymous referees of STI-Studies for their helpful and instructive comments.Without the help of Felicitas Krämer and Marc Weingart I would not have been able to write this article.1 We can only refer to a selected body of research on Free/Open Source Software development here.For a very good overview of the current state of the discussion cf.von Krogh/von Hippel (2006: 976-982) for management science and Holtgrewe/Brand (2007: 28-30) for the social sciences more generally.2 There are of course various proprietary software licenses for different purposes.For the argumentation developed here, the rough distinction between free and nonfree software is sufficient.For a category of free and non-free software see the website of the GNU-project: (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,last access 03/2008).