Igor Steinmacher’s research while affiliated with Federal University of Pernambuco and other places

Mentorship in open source software (OSS) is a vital, multifaceted process that includes onboarding newcomers, fostering skill development, and enhancing community building. This study examines task-focused mentoring strategies that help mentees complete their tasks and the ideal personal qualities and outcomes of good mentorship in OSS communities. We conducted two surveys to gather contributor perceptions: the first survey, with 70 mentors, mapped 17 mentoring challenges to 21 strategies that help support mentees. The second survey, with 85 contributors, assessed the importance of personal qualities and ideal mentorship outcomes. Our findings not only provide actionable strategies to help mentees overcome challenges and become successful contributors but also guide current and future mentors and OSS communities in understanding the personal qualities that are the cornerstone of good mentorship and the outcomes that mentor-mentee pairs should aspire to achieve.

Generative AI (genAI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot) have become ubiquitous in software engineering (SE). As SE educators, it behooves us to understand the consequences of genAI usage among SE students and to create a holistic view of where these tools can be successfully used. Through 16 reflective interviews with SE students, we explored their academic experiences of using genAI tools to complement SE learning and implementations. We uncover the contexts where these tools are helpful and where they pose challenges, along with examining why these challenges arise and how they impact students. We validated our findings through member checking and triangulation with instructors. Our findings provide practical considerations of where and why genAI should (not) be used in the context of supporting SE students.

New contributors often struggle to find tasks they can tackle when onboarding onto a new Open Source Software (OSS) project. One reason for this difficulty is that issue trackers lack explanations about the knowledge or skills needed to complete a given task successfully. These explanations can be complex and time-consuming to produce. Past research has partially addressed this problem by labeling issues with issue types, issue difficulty level and issue skills. However, current approaches are limited to a small set of labels and lack in-depth details about their semantics and might not be enough to direct contributors to an issue to work with. To surmount this limitation, this paper explores large language models (LLMs) and Random Forest (RF) to predict multilevel skills and solve open issues. We introduce a novel tool, SkillScope, which retrieves current issues from Java projects hosted on GitHub and predicts the multilevel programming skills required to resolve these issues. In a case study, we demonstrate that SkillScope could predict 217 multilevel skills for tasks with 91% precision, 88% recall, and 89% F-measure on average. Practitioners can use this tool to delegate tasks better or choose tasks for open-source projects.

Context Rapid Reviews are secondary studies aiming to deliver evidence to experts in a more timely manner and with lower costs than traditional literature reviews. Previous studies have shown that experts and researchers are positive toward Rapid Reviews. However, little is known about how Rapid Reviews differ from traditional Systematic Reviews. Objective The goal of this paper is to compare a Rapid Review with a Systematic Review in terms of their methods (e.g., search strategy, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction) and findings to understand how optimizing the traditional Systematic Review method impacts what we obtain with Rapid Review. Method To achieve this goal, we conducted a Systematic Review with the same research questions answered by a pre‐existing Rapid Review and compared those two studies. Also, we surveyed experts from industry and academia to evaluate the relevance of the findings obtained from both the secondary studies. Results The Rapid Review lasted 6 days, while the Systematic Review took 1 year and 2 months. The main bottlenecks we identified in the Systematic Review are (i) executing the search strategy and (ii) selecting the procedure. Together, they took 10 months. The researchers had to analyze the information from 11,383 papers for the Systematic Review compared with 1973 for the Rapid Review. Still, most ( 78%) of the papers included in the Systematic Review were returned by the Rapid Review search, and some papers that could be included were unduly excluded during the Rapid Review's selection procedure. Both secondary studies identified the same number of pieces of evidence (30), but the pieces of evidence are not the same. Conclusion The Rapid Review and Systematic Review results are inherently different and complementary. The time and cost to conduct a Systematic Review can be prohibitive in experts' contexts. Thus, at least in such situations, a Rapid Review may be an adequate choice. Moreover, a Rapid Review may be executed in the experts' context as a previous low‐cost step before deciding to invest in a high‐cost Systematic Review.

The sustainability of open source software (OSS) projects hinges on contributor retention. Interpersonal challenges can inhibit a feeling of welcomeness among contributors, particularly from underrepresented groups, which impacts their decision to continue with the project. How much this impact is, varies among individuals, underlining the importance of a thorough understanding of their effects. Here, we investigate the effects of interpersonal challenges on the sense of welcomeness among diverse populations within OSS, through the diversity lenses of gender, race, and (dis)ability. We analyzed the large-scale Linux Foundation Diversity and Inclusion survey (n = 706) to model a theoretical framework linking interpersonal challenges with the sense of welcomeness through Structural Equation Models Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM). We then examine the model to identify the impact of these challenges on different demographics through Multi-Group Analysis (MGA). Finally, we conducted a regression analysis to investigate how differently people from different demographics experience different types of interpersonal challenges. Our findings confirm the negative association between interpersonal challenges and the feeling of welcomeness in OSS, with this relationship being more pronounced among gender minorities and people with disabilities. We found that different challenges have unique impacts on how people feel welcomed, with variations across gender, race, and disability groups. We also provide evidence that people from gender minorities and with disabilities are more likely to experience interpersonal challenges than their counterparts, especially when we analyze stalking, sexual harassment, and doxxing. Our insights benefit OSS communities, informing potential strategies to improve the landscape of interpersonal relationships, ultimately fostering more inclusive and welcoming communities.

Igor Steinmacher, Bianca Trinkenreich, Marco Gerosa, and Anita Sarma