Hi everyone, I'm not going to cancel the vote or change the voting procedure, but I will extend it to Monday, October 27 16:00 UTC / 12:00 EDT (east coast time). Please feel free to change your vote, I am going to export this thread and the email with the latest timestamp will win. I will reach out to people individually if I have any questions. If we can try and limit this thread to the vote itself going forward (happy to continue the debate in a different thread though), that will make it easier for me to tally the results.
Thanks, Constance On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:39 PM Daniel Standish via dev < [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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
