Open source software projects often rely heavily on remote workers communicating via text, audio, and video media. Research on face-to-face and audio/video-mediated communication is mixed with regard to the comparative effectiveness of these forms of communication [1,2,3]), but demonstrates that each form has benefits and drawbacks. In-person interaction is valuable for uninterrupted, synchronous dialogue and helps to establish mutual understanding in a streamlined way [4]. Therefore, projects might benefit from engaging newcomers in in-person interaction from time to time.
Newcomers may particularly benefit from hackweeks. Hackweeks “combine structured periods focused on pedagogy (often with an emphasis on statistical and computational techniques) and less structured periods devoted to hacks and creative projects, with the goal of encouraging collaboration and learning among people at various stages of their career” [5]. Building newcomer-friendly events and activities into a hackweek model might serve as an effective approach for acclimating newcomers to the project and its community as well as highlight the potential avenues for newcomer contributions.
Projects should also exercise caution when asking newcomers to communicate in-person for several reasons. First, potential contributors might shy away from the project if they … [please add text here explaining why some people may not prefer in-person interaction]
Face-to-face communication also involves forms of information exchange that are not easily captured and archived for all project members to see. For example, collocated project members might hash out ideas on whiteboards, by scribbling notes, or through informal chats; even when transcribing and/or taking photos of these scenarios is possible, important contextual information may be lost. Decisions and changes may seem to “come out of nowhere” when evaluated by a project newcomer, so project leads should develop universally-accessible ways to communicate and explain the results of in-person activities.
[1] Doherty-Sneddon G, Anderson A, O'malley C, Langton S, Garrod S, Bruce V. Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 1997 Jun;3(2):105.
[2] Gallupe RB, McKeen JD. Enhancing computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a group decision support system for face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information & Management. 1990 Jan 1;18(1):1-3.
[3] Nardi BA, Whittaker S. The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. Distributed work. 2002:83-110.
[4] O'Malley C, Langton S, Anderson A, Doherty-Sneddon G, Bruce V. Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interaction. Interacting with Computers. 1996 Jun;8(2):177-92.
[5] Huppenkothen D, Arendt A, Hogg DW, Ram K, VanderPlas JT, Rokem A. Hack weeks as a model for data science education and collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018 Sep 4;115(36):8872-7.
Open source software projects often rely heavily on remote workers communicating via text, audio, and video media. Research on face-to-face and audio/video-mediated communication is mixed with regard to the comparative effectiveness of these forms of communication [1,2,3]), but demonstrates that each form has benefits and drawbacks. In-person interaction is valuable for uninterrupted, synchronous dialogue and helps to establish mutual understanding in a streamlined way [4]. Therefore, projects might benefit from engaging newcomers in in-person interaction from time to time.
Newcomers may particularly benefit from hackweeks. Hackweeks “combine structured periods focused on pedagogy (often with an emphasis on statistical and computational techniques) and less structured periods devoted to hacks and creative projects, with the goal of encouraging collaboration and learning among people at various stages of their career” [5]. Building newcomer-friendly events and activities into a hackweek model might serve as an effective approach for acclimating newcomers to the project and its community as well as highlight the potential avenues for newcomer contributions.
Projects should also exercise caution when asking newcomers to communicate in-person for several reasons. First, potential contributors might shy away from the project if they … [please add text here explaining why some people may not prefer in-person interaction]
Face-to-face communication also involves forms of information exchange that are not easily captured and archived for all project members to see. For example, collocated project members might hash out ideas on whiteboards, by scribbling notes, or through informal chats; even when transcribing and/or taking photos of these scenarios is possible, important contextual information may be lost. Decisions and changes may seem to “come out of nowhere” when evaluated by a project newcomer, so project leads should develop universally-accessible ways to communicate and explain the results of in-person activities.
[1] Doherty-Sneddon G, Anderson A, O'malley C, Langton S, Garrod S, Bruce V. Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 1997 Jun;3(2):105.
[2] Gallupe RB, McKeen JD. Enhancing computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a group decision support system for face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information & Management. 1990 Jan 1;18(1):1-3.
[3] Nardi BA, Whittaker S. The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. Distributed work. 2002:83-110.
[4] O'Malley C, Langton S, Anderson A, Doherty-Sneddon G, Bruce V. Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interaction. Interacting with Computers. 1996 Jun;8(2):177-92.
[5] Huppenkothen D, Arendt A, Hogg DW, Ram K, VanderPlas JT, Rokem A. Hack weeks as a model for data science education and collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018 Sep 4;115(36):8872-7.