Images did not work On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 10:12 AM Constance Martineau via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Thank you for your patience while I tallied the votes! For reference > purposes, here > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7mbztc6dchh73c7cnn7sjm1qtt6gj5zw> is a > link to the vote thread. > > As a reminder the options were: > > > - 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) > > > *Results (Binding Votes Only)* > > Based on the results, and following the rules that only binding votes are > counted, with voters able to submit a fractional vote between -1 and +1 per > option, Option B (Dag) won. > > We will therefore prefer "Dag" in docs, and use DAG only when referring to > the class or import itself. > > [image: image.png] > > *Additional Context* > > Because this vote was about convention (not code or architecture), and > because the discussion around voting method itself was interesting, I ran a > few "what-if" tallies to see how the outcome might vary: > > - If all votes (binding + non-binding) were counted, including multiple > options per person, Option B (Dag) still wins, but by a much closer > margin. > > [image: image.png] > > - If only the main binding vote (single strongest +1 per voter) were > considered, Option B (Dag) and Option C (DAG) would have been tied. > > [image: image.png] > > - If the main vote from both binding and non-binding voters were > included, Option C (DAG) would have narrowly won) > > [image: image.png] > > (For transparency, Ryan Hatter submitted two +1s, so I pinged him to > clarify why should be considered in the single-vote scenario) > > *Observation* > It's interesting that the outcome differs slightly between binding and > non-binding voters, with contributors leaning toward Dag and the broader > community favouring DAG. > > It's a nice reminder that Airflow serves two audiences: Contributors > leaning toward a cleaner, more readable style, and the wider community > still attached to the familiar "DAG" identity. Both are valid, and it's > interesting to see how the project's voice is shifting as we grow. > > *Next Steps* > Since we'd already started shifting documentation toward Dag when it seemed > to be the general preference, the vote results essentially confirms that > direction. > > We'll continue using Dag in docs going forward, keeping DAG only when > referring to the class/import itself. No changes are needed for existing > references unless a doc is being actively updated. > > If anybody would like to call a separate vote to create a Dag alias for > DAG, they are more than welcome to. I don't think the results of this vote > should preclude us from doing that at a later date if the community agrees. > > If anyone has strong objections or follow-ups, please share them by EOD > Friday, otherwise we'll consider this settled. > > Constance > > -- >
