+1 on Option B and 0.5 on Option D (binding). Thanks for preparing the discussions and the voting!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:28 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Constance: > > > I'm not going to cancel the vote or change the voting procedure > > I don't think it's needed at all. It would actually be interesting to see > the result. > > Daniel: > > > And in case it is not clear, my constructive suggestion was and remains > to > be to use ranked choice for this (and for multiple choice votes in > general). > > Absolutely - this is a good proposal and I think it's a good idea you > follow it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a decision via > vote and then calling another vote if we think that circumstances changed > or if we agreed that another way of voting is ... better. So what I would > encourage you to do - is to call first for a consensus (if we see from the > other discussion that we have consensus on following what ASF does with > STV/Instant Runoff Variant) - that future votes should be done this way > (that can be simple +1/-1 vote if people are happy with the multi-option > vote using Instant Runoff) - and then you can cast another vote - for the > same options with that method. There is absolutely no problem with someone > (especially when there is a good reason) to do a re-assumption of already > passed vote. We've done it in the past. And it would be interesting to > compare the outcomes of those two methods of voting. > > It's really what we do here - if people are not happy with the way we do > things, they have all the power to propose changes and lead them to > approval by the community. The world is your Oyster. > > J. > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 8:21 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 Option B (binding) > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 4:44 AM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I don’t like the -1 option too when it’s not acting as a veto. I share > > > Daniel’s feeling that it encourages people to -1 the options they don’t > > > favor which doesn’t seem fair. > > > > > > On Wed 22 Oct 2025 at 22:59, Constance Martineau via dev < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > I'm not going to cancel the vote or change the voting procedure, but > I > > > will > > > > extend it to Monday, October 27 16:00 UTC / 12:00 EDT (east coast > > time). > > > > Please feel free to change your vote, I am going to export this > thread > > > and > > > > the email with the latest timestamp will win. I will reach out to > > people > > > > individually if I have any questions. If we can try and limit this > > thread > > > > to the vote itself going forward (happy to continue the debate in a > > > > different thread though), that will make it easier for me to tally > the > > > > results. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Constance > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:39 PM Daniel Standish via dev < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I’m just saying that if negative votes are allowed with multiple > > choice > > > > > then it would be in everyone’s interest to put a minus 1 for the > > > options > > > > > that they least favor. And if everyone did that it would sorta > negate > > > the > > > > > minus ones. And if only some do it then some people’s votes will > > > > > effectively count more than others. It’s an odd outcome. > > > > > > > > > > If Ryan votes A+1 and B-1 and I vote B+1 and A-1 then we end up > with > > a > > > > > tally of A 0 and B 0 which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. > > > > > > > > > > At least with only positive then you get A 1 and B 1 and even > though > > > they > > > > > tie you see the sentiment. > > > > > > > > > > Now regarding casting votes for multiple options, my sense is that > > > people > > > > > are using it to sort of be like something like ranked choice. They > > > prefer > > > > > one, but they have another as second choice so they give it 0.5. > But > > > > ranked > > > > > choice would be a better way to do ranked choice, is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:54 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Just a general comment - I Think our general approach should be > to > > > look > > > > > for > > > > > > solutions rather than look for problems in our processes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Voting is the mechanism we use to make decisions. If we see > > > > ambiguities > > > > > - > > > > > > we should seek to resolve them. If we see "holes" we should > > actively > > > > seek > > > > > > ways to plug the holes, not to poke more of them. But if we see > > > > > > ambiguities, we should give people time to react after the > > > ambiguities > > > > > have > > > > > > been resolved. > > > > > > > > > > > > So Constance, my - constructive - proposal (and it's up to you to > > > > decide > > > > > > what to do) - is to give the people more time to vote/change > their > > > vote > > > > > and > > > > > > extend voting time by 72 Hrs. > > > > > > > > > > > > It was quite clear to me when the vote was announced what the > rules > > > > were, > > > > > > who are the people who have binding votes - but apparently Daniel > > was > > > > not > > > > > > too clear - and this also means that maybe others had > > > > > > different understanding as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's worth - IMHO (but up to you Constance) to extend voting time > > to > > > > > > account for resolving the ambiguities. > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 9:33 PM Ryan Hatter via dev < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Bugra Ozturk
