Interestingly it seems a lot of people were like "I prefer D, but it won't pass"
Maybe it would actually... On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:08 AM Daniel Standish < [email protected]> wrote: > So far, this is my tally: > > A > TP (binding) > (.5) sumit > > B > jarek (binding) > vincent (binding) > niko (binding) > jens (binding) > ankit > pankaj (binding) > tamara > (0.5) collin > (0.9) wei (binding) > (0.5) brent (binding) > > C > kaxil (binding) > pavankumar (binding) > sumit (binding) > josh (binding) > bas (binding) > pierre (binding) > > D > ramit > collin > ryan (binding) > wei (binding) > brent > > By my count it is > > B - 6.4 > C - 6 > D - 3 > A - 1.5 > > If you only include the bindings and if the bindings are correct > > I have not voted yet. > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:04 AM Daniel Standish < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Question: >> >> whose votes are binding on this vote? committers? PMC members? everyone? >> >> Also, many have voted for 2 options and with fractions. >> >> To me the fractional voting makes sense with a binary up-or-down vote. >> It's meant to signal strength of support for a motion. But with multiple >> choice, I'm not sure it makes as much sense. >> >> E.g. I could vote +1 for C and -1 for B -- then in effect my vote counts >> 2 times! But that doesn't sound right to me. >> >> For multiple choice votes, ranked choice voting probably makes the most >> sense. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 10:52 AM Brent Bovenzi via dev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 Option D >>> +0.5 Option B >>> (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 1:42 PM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Option C (binding) >>> > >>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:07 PM Bas Harenslak via dev < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Option C (binding) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 22 Oct 2025, at 16:10, Josh Fell via dev <[email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 for option C (binding) >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:39 PM Sumit Maheshwari < >>> [email protected] >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 for Option C (binding) >>> > > +0.5 for Option A (binding) >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:32 AM Tzu-ping Chung via dev < >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > My ideal scenario would be dag when we describe an object (using “a >>> dag” >>> > > or “the dag” etc), and Dag as the class name, like any ordinary noun. >>> > > >>> > > Since that would probably too much work for no real value (as many >>> > > >>> > > already >>> > > >>> > > suggested), I’m going to put +1 on option A since it matches best >>> how my >>> > > mind wants to perceive the noun. >>> > > >>> > > TP >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 21 Oct 2025, at 03:02, Constance Martineau via dev < >>> > > >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Hi everyone, >>> > > >>> > > As discussed in this email thread >>> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/h4b0vjfr4dkbyhrkoxpfjo67s38yr0hh>, >>> I >>> > > >>> > > am >>> > > >>> > > formally calling a vote to finalize how we refer to Airflow workflows >>> > > >>> > > in >>> > > >>> > > writing. The vote will run for roughly 72 hours, and last until >>> > > >>> > > Thursday >>> > > >>> > > October 23rd at 7:00 pm UTC (countdown link >>> > > <https://countingdownto.com/?c=6656693>) >>> > > >>> > > The options are: >>> > > >>> > > - Option A: Prefer dag in docs; use DAG only when referring to the >>> > > class/import >>> > > - Option B: Prefer Dag in docs; use DAG only for the class/import >>> > > - Option C: Keep DAG as the standard everywhere (status quo) >>> > > - Option D: Prefer Dag in docs, use Dag for class/import and alias >>> > > >>> > > DAG >>> > > >>> > > (for backcompat reasons) >>> > > >>> > > You can vote any fractional between -1 and +1 for any of the options, >>> > > >>> > > and >>> > > >>> > > the option with the highest sum (even if it's a negative) wins. This >>> > > >>> > > is a >>> > > >>> > > procedural vote, meaning that -1 is not considered a veto. Everyone >>> is >>> > > encouraged to vote, but only PMC members and Committer's votes are >>> > > considered binding. >>> > > >>> > > Please see email thread >>> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/h4b0vjfr4dkbyhrkoxpfjo67s38yr0hh> >>> for >>> > > additional context. >>> > > >>> > > Why this matters: We’ve had inconsistent terminology across docs and >>> > > repeated PR debates over capitalization. Standardizing will make our >>> > > writing clearer, strengthen the Airflow brand, and give external >>> > > stakeholders a single reference to follow. >>> > > >>> > > Best, >>> > > Constance >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
