Right I was not meaning consensus in the technical sense. But like there wasn't even a plurality in favor of this proposal according to the tally from Wei, the last message in the discuss thread:
Summarize what we have gathered so far (please let me know if i > misunderstood anything) * As long as it's not DAG > * Wei > * Pierre > * Dag > * Jarek > * Ash > * dag > * Daniel > * Sumit > * Ankit If this vote goes by simple majority, consider this my -1 (binding). But yeah I really think that either way, it would help to ensure that voters are sufficiently informed if the proposal was a bit more specific. People might not have read the discussion thread. This is the operative part of the proposal: I would like to formally call a vote to standardize on "Dag". Does this mean that we cannot use `dag` to refer informally to a dag in a sentence in the docs? Like, would this be against the rules? Given a start date and an end date, Airflow will create runs in the range > according to the dag's schedule. And we would have to do this instead? Given a start date and an end date, Airflow will create runs in the range > according to the Dag's schedule. Does it also mean we can't use DAG? On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 3:17 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep. Indeed consensus has not been reached, that was be a bit of an > overstatement. Looking at the discussion points I believe we got (almost) a > consensus of not using DAG (except when referring to class) but we seem to > not get consensus on only using Dag when referring to the "Airflow > workflow" in a sentence. > > There were voices for "Dag" only, and other voices for also using (or even > preferring in regular sentences) "dag". And there was no consensus - from > what I see in the discussions (helpfully linked by Constance) - there were > broadly two "camps": > > 1) Dag is something we want to name and own - even if it's not "correct" > Python name or not correct capitalisation. > 2) Dag is not the "correct" capitalization and "dag" is way better to use > as it is correctly capitalized in a sentence. > > So what I understand from there - since there was no sign of consensus - > Constance called a vote on "Dag" as the only preferred form (camp 1)- and > we are voting on it now - with +1/0/-1 or fractions. This is what has been > already discussed in the linked threads that if we won't be able to > convince each other we will vote. And anyone can vote and state their > preference, there is absolutely no problem or shame if someone votes -1. > It's ok to have a different opinion. > > In practical terms - this is a procedural vote > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. And the "Simple majority" > rule applies (the vote passes when there is more +1 than -1 assuming there > are enough votes to be representative). > That's quite a standard way of making decisions in the PMC. We had many > votes in the past where we did not agree on something via consensus, and > the simple majority vote was needed. And usually it's kinda expected to > "disagree but engage" after such votes by those who disagreed. Happened > many times :) > > J. > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:40 AM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 binding > > I don't recall any consensus either. I think we discussed, agreed at > some > > level but no vote occured afterwards. Thanks Constance! > > > > Bugra Ozturk > > > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025, 10:55 Wei Lee, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Other than not using DAG, I don’t recall a consensus either > > > > > > > but we are trying to call a vote to standardise on usage of "Dag" in > > > docs? Does that mean we cannot use "dag”? > > > > > > I think that what we should do is if that’s the result. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Wei > > > > > > > On Oct 15, 2025, at 2:14 PM, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I do not recall a formal consensus either. > > > > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but we are trying to call a vote to > > > standardise on > > > > usage of "Dag" in docs? Does that mean we cannot use "dag"? > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 4:57 AM Daniel Standish via dev < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I don’t recall there really being consensus on this. > > > >> > > > >> I would still like to be able to use simply “dag” in a sentence. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:13 PM Constance Martineau via dev < > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi everyone, > > > >>> > > > >>> Just to wrap up the dag vs DAG vs Dag nomenclature discussions > we've > > > been > > > >>> having over the last few months, I would like to formally call a > vote > > > to > > > >>> standardize on "Dag". > > > >>> > > > >>> Jens already updated the docs for 3.1 via this PR > > > >>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/55097>, so hopefully this > is > > > >> just > > > >>> a > > > >>> formality. > > > >>> > > > >>> Discussion threads: > > > >>> > > > >>> - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/lktrzqkzrpvc1cyctxz7zxfmc0fwtq2j > > > >>> - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/5fn1n188f99jspt627qhqsp2pznq545s > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank you to everyone who took part in the conversations. The vote > > will > > > >> run > > > >>> for ~3 days, and last till Friday October 17, 2025 at 7:30pm > > (countdown > > > >>> link > > > >>> <https://countingdownto.com/?c=6644364>). > > > >>> > > > >>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only PMC members and > > > Committer's > > > >>> votes are considered binding. > > > >>> > > > >>> Please consider this my +1 (non-binding). > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Constance > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
