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 > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
