At least to me D is less “it won’t pass” but more “I don’t want to be the one implementing it and I assume the same for everyone else.”
> On 23 Oct 2025, at 02:09, 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] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
