+1 (non-binding) Thank you for putting this proposal together, really well thought-out plan and great to see the process clearly articulated. Also great learning reading through the thoughtful inputs around privacy and survey design. The ideas on clarity for new users and keeping things accessible resonate with me as well.
Happy to support this effort however I can. Best, Stefan > On Dec 7, 2025, at 8:54 PM, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 binding. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 7:36 AM Srabasti Banerjee < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non binding) >> For the questionnaire, it will be good to have hover signs with >> descriptions for new/less technical/business users taking the survey. This >> will help guide those who are not familiar with the Airflow internals, to >> be able to make educated choices rather than random guesses. Hardcore >> technical questions should be optional so as to encourage all to attempt >> the survey till the end, since inputs from UI/non technical aspects are >> also good from the community. >> >> Happy to volunteer to be a "test taker" to ensure the verbage and >> terminology is easy to understand for new users to Airflow:) >> >> Warm Regards, >> Srabasti Banerjee >> >> On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 7:33 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just >>> “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it instead. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 2:39 PM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? >>>> >>>> The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just >>>> “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it >> instead. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Wei >>>> >>>>> On Dec 7, 2025, at 7:38 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. >>>>> >>>>>> Also, I think we "should" redact PII instead. >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? >>>>> >>>>> I think we need to be very precise here. Privacy is important for the >>>> ASF - >>>>> for example recently CSP (Content Security Policy) have been made a >> lot >>>>> stricter by the ASF and we had to remove some of the links to >> external >>>>> parties (youtube videos now are strictly "click to play" and youtube >>>>> thumbnails are downloaded now from our site to protect privacy. And >>> for >>>>> example it is impossible to embed (I just tried with release >> calendar) >>>> for >>>>> example Google Calendar in a wiki page hosted at cwiki.apache.org - >>>> mostly >>>>> because ASF does not want to "force" people into their data being >>>> gathered >>>>> by 3rd-parties by **just** looking at ASF pages. >>>>> >>>>> My understanding is that this is really a requirement that the PII >> data >>>> is >>>>> only gathered to protect the survey from being abused and nothing >> else >>>> and >>>>> we won't even see it (neither whoever runs the survey will collect >> them >>>> for >>>>> other purposes than fraudulent mis-use detection and protection. The >>> PII >>>>> are very hard to not get on incoming requests - for example full >> client >>>> IP >>>>> address is considered PII) and you will **get** it when someone >> makes a >>>>> request, you also need to use it in case you have spam or AI slop to >>>> filter >>>>> out obvious mis-use. And to be honest we as PMC don't even want to >> deal >>>>> with it. Also, we might ask the privacy team of ASF to review the >>> survey >>>>> setup before it is run in case there is no suitable ASF >> infrastructure >>>>> solution. >>>>> >>>>>> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the >> end >>>> of >>>>> the calendar year? >>>>> >>>>> Might be a good idea to indeed formalise the calendar? >>>>> Yep I think it's a good idea to announce we want to run it and ask >> for >>>>> potential sponsors. Say June - open it up with September to run it - >>>>> November to finish and January next year to announce results ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 6:12 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> + 1 binding >>>>>> >>>>>> A few nitpicks and questions >>>>>> >>>>>>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full >>>>>> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. >> Publish >>>>>> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only >>>>>> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent >>>>>> answers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. Also, I think we >>>> "should" >>>>>> redact PII instead. >>>>>> >>>>>>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the >> cost >>>>>> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome >> such >>>>>> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call for >>>>>> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the >> end >>>> of >>>>>> the calendar year? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Wei >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2025, at 1:03 AM, Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 binding - I think that these principles should be visible in the >>>> wiki >>>>>> :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shahar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, 00:09 Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been pointed out that the way we run our yearly community >>>> survey >>>>>>>> happens by inertia, without any formality to it. Now while I’m >> never >>>> one >>>>>>>> for too much formality, some here would be helpful. >>>>>>>> We discussed it in the Airflow PMC and with the outcome we now >>> raise a >>>>>>>> vote on the devlist in public. Proposal is we formally accept the >>>>>>>> following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * A yearly Airflow Community survey should be run, and it should >> run >>>>>>>> proximate to the end of the calendar year. >>>>>>>> * The intent of this survey is to understand the use of the >> software >>>>>>>> and features used in order to understand where to focus future >>>>>>>> development on and which features might be deprecated. But not >>>>>>>> limited to. We are also interested in perceived quality and >>> biggest >>>>>>>> problems for which we even might need to elaborate a solution >>> space. >>>>>>>> * The questions for which are discussed on the dev list. We should >>>>>>>> have a final lazy consensus to the dev list (or vote if we don’t >>> see >>>>>>>> consensus) on the questions before the survey is published. No >>>>>>>> formal vote is required before finalising the questions or >>> starting >>>>>>>> the survey. It would be good to keep a majority of questions >>> stable >>>>>>>> such that we can see changes year-over-year. >>>>>>>> * Questions must not involve collecting PII data. One exception is >>> the >>>>>>>> optional collecting of email addresses for delivering sponsor >>>>>>>> incentives (i.e. training course, credits. See further on in >> this >>>>>>>> document) >>>>>>>> * There is no formal position or person responsible for generating >>> the >>>>>>>> questions. As with everything ASF related, all individuals are >>> given >>>>>>>> the opportunity to participate, but their influence is based on >>>>>>>> publicly earned merit. >>>>>>>> * The PMC will promote the survey via airflow.apache.org website >> - >>>>>>>> including the banners on the website, and Apache Airflow Social >>>>>>>> Media, Slack and similar channels. >>>>>>>> * The survey should be conducted in a way such that not one person >>> or >>>>>>>> company gets more information than the others. >>>>>>>> * The results should be processed/analysed and a summary published >>> on >>>>>>>> the Airflow website (and thus subject to normal PR review >> process >>> by >>>>>>>> committers and the PMC). >>>>>>>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full >>>>>>>> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. >>> Publish >>>>>>>> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only >>>>>>>> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent >>>>>>>> answers. >>>>>>>> * In case there is no appropriate survey platform run by the ASF >>>>>>>> available for under the “apache.org” URL, the entity or people >>>>>>>> running the survey will be free to host it elsewhere. >>>>>>>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the >>> cost >>>>>>>> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome >>> such >>>>>>>> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call >> for >>>>>>>> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it. We will also >> leave >>>>>>>> freedom for the entity running the survey in the way to attract >>> wide >>>>>>>> audience (for example offering credits or free products as long >> as >>>>>>>> they do not suggest being PMC endorsed; and to refer Apache >>> Airflow >>>>>>>> according to the nominative fair use. >>>>>>>> * In cases of such sponsorship, the entity will be listed as >> sponsor >>>>>>>> permanently in the published Survey results - this is in >>> accordance >>>>>>>> with the targeted-sponsorship policy of the ASF. We will inform >>>>>>>> Fundraising of the ASF about this being a formal targeted >>>>>>>> sponsorship by the PMC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is just writing down what we do already (with the exception >> of >>>> the >>>>>>>> last two points which are a new addition and a more formal >> approach >>> to >>>>>>>> the ad-hoc basis right now). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jens on behalf of the Airflow PMC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This email is calling a vote for the procedure, which will last >> for >>> 5 >>>>>>>> days - which means that it will end on December 8th, 2025 22:00 >> UTC. >>>>>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only PMC members and >>>>>>>> Committer's votes are considered binding. Members of the community >>> are >>>>>>>> encouraged to vote with "(non-binding)". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consider this my +1 (binding) vote. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
