Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Introduction of README and CONTRIBUTING Files in Open Source Software Development

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.18440 v2 pith:KOHEPFTY submitted 2025-02-25 cs.SE cs.SI

The Introduction of README and CONTRIBUTING Files in Open Source Software Development

Matthew Gaughan , Kaylea Champion , Sohyeon Hwang , Aaron Shaw This is my paper
classification cs.SE cs.SI
keywords projectsfilescontributingflossdocumentationopenreadmesoftware
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

README and CONTRIBUTING files can serve as the first point of contact for potential contributors to free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) projects. Prominent open source software organizations such as Mozilla, GitHub, and the Linux Foundation advocate that projects provide community-focused and process-oriented documentation early to foster recruitment and activity. In this paper we investigate the introduction of these documents in FLOSS projects, including whether early documentation conforms to these recommendations or explains subsequent activity. We use a novel dataset of FLOSS projects packaged by the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and conduct a quantitative analysis to examine README (n=4226) and CONTRIBUTING (n=714) files when they are first published into projects' repositories. We find that projects create minimal READMEs proactively, but often publish CONTRIBUTING files following an influx of contributions. The initial versions of these files rarely focus on community development, instead containing descriptions of project procedure for library usage or code contribution. The findings suggest that FLOSS projects do not create documentation with community-building in mind, but rather favor brevity and standardized instructions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ContextCov: Deriving and Enforcing Executable Constraints from Agent Instruction Files

    cs.SE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ContextCov compiles agent instruction files into static, runtime, and architectural guardrails, raising constraint compliance to 88.3% on SWE-bench Lite tasks versus 67% and 50.3% for prompt and reflection baselines.

  2. What Motivates Whom? A Survey of Newcomers to OSS and Experienced OSS Practitioners

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Demographics and motivations correlate with OSS project-selection preferences, with distinct patterns for newcomers versus experienced practitioners in a 208-person survey.