I think Constance described it well in the announcement. > 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.
And yes I think it's OK to vote on multiple options. For example (+1 D) means +1 on D, 0 all others - I.e. I have no opinions on other options. At least this is what my +1 B meant. If one thinks that one (or more) of those options are unacceptable - they can vote with -1 on all those. Note that this is precisely what Constance described - that there might be an option with negative total sum. And it's perfectly fine for people to vote +1 or +0.9 on multiple options - it's not "who wins" but "which option wins". I don't absolutely care who "wins" here, but which option has the most support. J. On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:09 PM Daniel Standish via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> >
