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).
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 1:38 PM Daniel Standish < [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] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
