how did sponsors design open source software communities in the hopes of attracting external participation, and how did this differ from the design of autonomous based communities?

Overall, the degree of modularity, associated dependencies, and the quality of code documentation affected the ability of outside members to understand the code well enough to contribute. [..] In addition to the technical architecture of the code, the organization of production includes control of the processes by which individuals participate in the community's production process. These social measures are not necessarily correlated to a project's technical design: for example, highly modular code can still be tightly controlled by a single firm. Thus, a project's technical architecture is one subset of a community's participation architecture. [..] We identified three design parameters that provided contributors with transparency and accessibility to production processes:

1. Live code access provides transparency by offering the community the chance to review the most recent "live" version of source code on the community website. [..]
2. Public commit process refers to the opportunity for community members to become directly involved in the production process by earning (through demonstrated technical proficiency) the right to directly commit software changes to the community repository. [..]
3. Subproject creation is a mechanism by which a community based on the sponsor's original code can grow to assume new functionality or new directions.