So ... maybe just lets' ask for a consensus on that (agreement on how we run future votes) and document it? Would you like to do **that** ? I think this is the best way to turn the conviction you have that we **should** do it into actually written down and agreed rule that we will follow from now on Daniel.
That's the easiest way to make your idea a reality. J. On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 5:03 PM Daniel Standish via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jarek, I won't call for another vote. I sort of just want to let > this sleeping dog lie. But if others want to redo it with IRV then sure > let's do it. > > I do think though, as raised in the other thread, the best thing for > community is (1) avoid multiple choice votes unless really necessary and > (2) when doing multiple choice, do either IRV or simple +1 vote *only *(no > fractions or negatives or voting for more than one)*.* And if having two > voting style options is too much, then just IRV is the way. > > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:13 PM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for running this, Constance. > > > > A simple naming convention like this one had a lot of interesting > outcomes > > that I didn't expect > > at all. It is nice to see how a simple naming affects so many individuals > > and matters enough for them > > to actually vote! > > > > We also went through an interesting angle to the whole voting process and > > it's nice to see > > that this could bring out a process change or atleast a proposal for it. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:25 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Constance for all the summaries and different tallies (yes, it's > > > easy to lose track in mailing list - been there done that). > > > > > > One of the reasons ASF is working on Apache Trusted Releases - where > > > release votes will be collected by the "tooling" rather than relying on > > > manual processing of mailing list output (ATR will generate the mails > so > > > that we can keep track of the votes). > > > > > > BTW. Daniel, also I would really encourage you - if you think it's > worth > > it > > > - to re-run the vote using IRV (instant runoff-voting). There is a good > > > reason you raised this vote could make people confused or unclear on > > > how they should vote. If you continue worrying about that - one way of > > > dealing with it is to re-run the vote, with the reasoning that indeed - > > > people could be confused. I think we all hear and understand concerns > you > > > have. Taking matters in your hands to "improve things" and do it > "better" > > > is something I would very welcome - and I guess a lot of us would as > > well. > > > > > > I also see it as a very interesting experiment - It would be great to > see > > > what will be the result of it and compare. > > > > > > J, > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 4:38 PM Constance Martineau via dev < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jens, I am so sorry! I double checked and am not sure how I missed > > that. > > > > Thank you for catching my mistake! > > > > > > > > Doesn't change the outcome but official updated tally: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Option A: +1.5 > > > > - Option B: +8.4 > > > > - Option C: +5 > > > > - Option D: +3.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 5:17 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Constance for driving this. > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the Google Sheet it seems my (binding) vote is missing > but > > > no > > > > > big problem as I also voted for Option B > > > > > > > > > > On 28.10.25 18:32, Constance Martineau via dev wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Daniel. Not sure how to make them show up, so made the > > google > > > > > sheets > > > > > > public: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sNhlNM2YqgTDvWOXp7o0zFF-VquddWANxx7S02G3lXM/edit?gid=0#gid=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:18 PM Daniel Standish via dev < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
