|
|
 |
Review: Panteli's "Trust in Global Virtual Teams"
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
A review of the article "Trust in Global Virtual Teams" by Niki Panteli, accessed on Ariadne, which I have considered in the context of its relevance to the discussion to open source development methods.
Panteli's Trust in Global Virtual Teams: Applicability of an Analysis of Trust to Open Source Development Environments
Panteli's Trust in Global Virtual Teams, in dealing with the concerns of groups collaborating primarily via remote telecommunication, makes its findings immediately relevant in no small way to the concerns of communities functioning on the basis of open source development frameworks in the present day. But while the categories of project with which the article concerns itself bear a strong resemblance to F/OSS development environments, it does not seem equally the case that the article's concerns are ones given a central focus within the open source community. Indeed, Panteli asserts a general absence of literature on the role of trust in group productivity, and this assertion seems to be born out in an evaluation specifically of open source theoretical works. It bears asking therefore whether Panteli has hit upon something which the F/OSS community has largely missed in its treatment of collaborative work, or whether 'trust' as Panteli conceives it is simply not fundamental to work undertaken with an open source approach.
When Eric S. Raymond proclaims the virtues of F/OSS development methods in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he argues for the general methodological superiority of the open source approach and if there is trust involved in OSS development as he conceives it, it is largely a trust in that approach. Panteli offers to this idealism, dubbed elsewhere 'vulgar Raymondism' (Bezroukov, 1999) some necessary perspective. In the context of Panteli's ideas, it seems likely that open source philosophy and ideology themselves serve, at least for Raymond and his peers, as a source of motivational energy fundamental to group cohesion in a F/OSS development context. Panteli says,
"Shared goals are and should be a key characteristic of virtual teams. They could provide a means to developing a common sense of identity for team members which can be of particular benefit" (para. 12)
And for Raymond and Stallman as well, a distinct free or open source identity seems to be crucial to the initiation and success of F/OSS collaboration. This identity provides for a level of common trust which would not otherwise be manifested. In this respect, Panteli's findings seem coherent with the experience of open source development, if not the particular vision of open source which its thinkers tend to promote. For Eric S. Raymond, even what unspoken sense of trust exists in his collaborative open source development scenario seems to exist chiefly as a trust in the inherent virtue and efficiency of the F/OSS approach itself. Because he conceives of F/OSS development as chiefly voluntary and believes self-interest to be sufficient justification for any individual or group to pursue the open source approach, 'trust' in, e.g., the altruism of fellow team members is unnecessary, as open source development need not in any way be an altruistic pursuit in order to be a meritorious one.
Panteli does not generalise trust as a faith in the goodwill of other team members but rather merely as an expectation regarding the behavior of fellow team members in a situation where risk is implied, however. And in this sense trust in such a wider meaning may indeed be relevant to open source. Yet it is not clear that risk is an operating element in any meaningful sense within GNU licensed open source projects of the sort about which Raymond theorises. In a purely voluntary, non-bureaucratic and non-proprietary development situation, no larger danger need exist than that an individual simply may cease to contribute to the project. There is reason to believe that respect rather than trust is the fundamental organising principle on which open source collaboration operates, as any involved risk is simply not sufficient to make confidence in one's peers' trustworthiness as fundamental as is confidence in one's peers' abilities.
Raymond contends that 'many eyeballs tame complexity', which is to say that as a contributor base grows, even organisational concerns within a codebase are dealt with more efficiently. There is a project coordinator in both of the major cases (Fetchmail and Linux) he deals with, but hierarchy is otherwise non-apparent. Panteli seems to suggest that hierarchies do arise naturally in such projects, however:
"In considering power within virtual teams there is an increasing recognition in the literature that knowledge is indeed power...the team member with power at any given time is the one with the most relevant knowledge at that time." (para. 10)
And here, Panteli's position seems to be corroborated by the remarks of open source guru Allan Cox on Raymond's model. In Cathedrals, Bazaars and the Town Council (1999), Cox argues that productive F/OSS development teams will tend to arise not out of a chaotic bazaar environment, but rather out of a 'town council' core group who distinguish themselves from within a larger base of interested participants. It is individuals possessed of the necessary knowledge to accomplish material tasks and advise on solutions who will assume genuine positions of power, so Cox asserts.
Panteli remarks on the role of the 'facilitator' in creating a productive social dynamic, asserting, "facilitators are found to have an enabling role in constructing shared goals and minimising destructive power differentials". This observation seems to point to an evident reality of the F/OSS development environment, constituted in the role of project lead. The project lead as exemplified by Linus Torvalds in Raymond's work evidently exists somewhat isolated from the meritocracy of the remainder of the project, which accepts productive members and shuns unproductive ones (according to Cox) as new contributors come and go. Torvalds has acknowledged this dual role of facilitator and executive power, as "benevolent dictator for life" or "BDFL" (Hamm, 2005). If Raymond is correct, it is his ability to encourage productivity and maintain accord which serves as his chief strength and if Panteli's analysis is applicable to the open source case, Torvalds functions as 'facilitator' in fulfilling these duties within his role as BDFL.
Panteli's vision of group productivity endorses the creation of trust between parties within a collaborative structure and promotes the role of facilitator in fomenting collective trust. An open source project philosophy appears to satisfy the need for trust between parties by creating a sense of solidarity and addresses the need for shared practical objectives simply by virtue of the wholly voluntary nature of most F/OSS undertakings. The open source literature furthermore predicts and observes the emergence of a meritocratic power structure in geographically dispersed collaborative workgroup which is in keeping with Panteli's remarks regarding the role of knowledge itself in determining authority. Panteli has explained trust as an overlooked but fundamental aspect of productive interaction within groups whose interaction is mediated by technology, and this observation seems coherent with open source theory on the subject. It may be argued that trust is not undervalued within open source methodology so much as it is merely taken for granted in its associated literature.
Works Cited
Bezroukov, Nikolai. (1999). A Second Look at the Cathedral and Bazaar. Retrieved November 10th, 2005, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/bezroukov/index.html.
Hamm, Steve. (2004). Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship. BusinessWeek Online. Retrieved November 10th, 2005, from http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_1593.htm.
Cox, Allan (1998). Cathedrals, Bazaars and the Town Council. Slashdot. Retrieved November 10th, 2005, from http://slashdot.org\article.pl?sid=98/10/13/1423253.
Panteli, Niki. (2005). Trust in Global Virtual Environments. Ariadne, 43. Retrieved November 10th, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue43/panteli/intro.html.
Raymond, Eric S. (2000). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Retrieved November 10th, 2005, from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/.
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Welcome to ASKimberley's [FIS]Blog](themes/Icey/images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
