Actually - to give a good example - I want to change my vote (after's TP comment):
* B +1 * D -1 J. On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:29 PM Tzu-ping Chung via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >
