Updated vote: +1 B +1 D -1 C
If D passes I'll take a stab at it On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 2:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > > >
