And if someone did not understand that they can vote on multiple options - there is still 24 hrs to change the vote BTW. This is absolutely no problem to change the vote until the end of the vote.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >
