industryterm:open source software community

  • Microsoft Makes it Official : Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative | Open Source Initiative
    https://opensource.org/node/901

    Ya-t-il quelqu’un ici qui se rappelle des « Halloween documents ». Même si c’est de la "récupération", le déplacement de Microsoft vers le libre (enfin, vers l’open source, ce qui est quand même bien plus limité) est la sanction d’une victoire : le libre est un moteur du développement de l’informatique, fut-il partagé (communs) ou commercial. A moins que ce ne soit le baiser du serpent...

    The Open Source Initiative ® (OSI) the global non-profit dedicated to promoting and protecting open source software through education, collaboration, and infrastructure, announced today that Microsoft has joined the organization as a Premium Sponsor.

    Microsoft’s history with the OSI dates back to 2005 with the submission of the Microsoft Community License, then again in August of 2007 with the submission of the Microsoft Permissive License. For many in the open source software community, it was Microsoft’s release of .NET in 2014 under an open source license that may fave first caught their attention. Microsoft has increasingly participated in open source projects and communities as users, contributors, and creators, and has released even more open source products like Visual Studio Code and Typescript.

    The company is a leading contributor to open source software projects on GitHub (also an OSI Corporate Sponsor); brought Bash/Linux to Windows 10; expanded its support for Linux and open source workloads on Azure; worked with OSI Affiliate Member FreeBSD Foundation to support the operating system on Azure; joined OSI Affiliate Member Linux Foundation and many of its foundations and projects. In addition, Microsoft works with companies like Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE, and open source can now be found throughout Microsoft products.

    #Microsoft #Logiciel_libre #Open_source

    • This paper presents the largest study to date on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions from men versus women in an open source software community. Surprisingly, our results show that women’s contributions tend to be accepted more often than men’s. However, when a woman’s gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.

      #sexisme #logiciels_libres #informatique #github #femmes

    • Lu en diagonal, l’étude se heurte à la difficulté de ne pas faire d’étude in situ avec des interviews et n’analyse que des données, comme par exemple sur github savoir quel #genre est vraiment déclaré.

      Ce qu’il en ressort dans tous les cas est que les décideurs finaux sont des hommes. Donc, soit il faut se battre soit il faut se battre, et c’est fatiguant ce mur construit de préjugés sexistes tenaces qui explique le pourquoi du désengagement des femmes, la vie est courte.

      The most obvious illustration is the underrepresentation of women in open source; in a 2013 survey of the more than 2000 open source developers who indicated a gender, only 11.2% were women (1). In Vasilescu and colleagues’ study of Stack Overflow, a question and answer community for programmers, they found “a relatively ’unhealthy’ community where women disengage sooner, although their activity levels are comparable to men’s” (2).
      These studies are especially troubling in light of recent research which suggests that diverse software development teams are more productive than homogeneous teams (3).

      Yet another explanation is that women are held
      to higher performance standards than men, an explanation supported by Gorman and Kmec’s analysis of the general workforce (23)

      1/ L. Arjona-Reina, G. Robles, S. Dueas, The floss2013 free/libre/open source survey (2014).
      3/ B. Vasilescu, et al., CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI (ACM, 2015), pp. 3789–3798
      23/ E. H. Gorman, J. A. Kmec, Gender & Society 21, 828 (2007).

      #data_gender #genre
      Et merci pour le signalement @rastapopoulos