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] >> > > >> > >> >
