C: +1 (binding) B: -1 (binding) (i would not do this, because I believe voting -1 in multi choice should not be allowed, but ryan voted -1 on C so I had to counter that ;) )
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:11 AM Daniel Standish < [email protected]> wrote: > > Jarek, > > Yeah I mean, the goal is simply that the will of the community be done. > And my main concern is that folks may, by using 0.5 votes to signal > second preference, they may unintentionally cause their preferred option to > lose. And in a close vote that actually seems pretty consequential, > I think it matters. > > The other thing we should remember is sometimes we can avoid the problems > and complexities of multi-choice by splitting things up a bit. E.g. in > this case, we could first resolve the question, should we rename DAG to Dag > *in > code *(i.e. option D in this proposal), in a single up or down vote. It > can be considered independently of the others. And the resolution of this > question would simplify or perhaps completely avoid the subsequent votes. > > I'll vote in a separate reply. > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 7:55 AM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +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 >> >
