Jarek, Yeah I mean, the goal is simply that the will of the community be done. And my main concern is that folks may, by using 0.5 votes to signal second preference, they may unintentionally cause their preferred option to lose. And in a close vote that actually seems pretty consequential, I think it matters.
The other thing we should remember is sometimes we can avoid the problems and complexities of multi-choice by splitting things up a bit. E.g. in this case, we could first resolve the question, should we rename DAG to Dag *in code *(i.e. option D in this proposal), in a single up or down vote. It can be considered independently of the others. And the resolution of this question would simplify or perhaps completely avoid the subsequent votes. I'll vote in a separate reply. On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 7:55 AM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on Option B and 0.5 on Option D (binding). Thanks for preparing the > discussions and the voting! > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:28 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Constance: > > > > > I'm not going to cancel the vote or change the voting procedure > > > > I don't think it's needed at all. It would actually be interesting to see > > the result. > > > > Daniel: > > > > > 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). > > > > Absolutely - this is a good proposal and I think it's a good idea you > > follow it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a decision via > > vote and then calling another vote if we think that circumstances changed > > or if we agreed that another way of voting is ... better. So what I would > > encourage you to do - is to call first for a consensus (if we see from > the > > other discussion that we have consensus on following what ASF does with > > STV/Instant Runoff Variant) - that future votes should be done this way > > (that can be simple +1/-1 vote if people are happy with the multi-option > > vote using Instant Runoff) - and then you can cast another vote - for the > > same options with that method. There is absolutely no problem with > someone > > (especially when there is a good reason) to do a re-assumption of already > > passed vote. We've done it in the past. And it would be interesting to > > compare the outcomes of those two methods of voting. > > > > It's really what we do here - if people are not happy with the way we do > > things, they have all the power to propose changes and lead them to > > approval by the community. The world is your Oyster. > > > > J. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 8:21 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > +1 Option B (binding) > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 4:44 AM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I don’t like the -1 option too when it’s not acting as a veto. I > share > > > > Daniel’s feeling that it encourages people to -1 the options they > don’t > > > > favor which doesn’t seem fair. > > > > > > > > On Wed 22 Oct 2025 at 22:59, Constance Martineau via dev < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Bugra Ozturk >
