+1 Option C (non-binding) On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:43 PM Daniel Standish via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> C: +1 (binding) > B: -1 (binding) (i would not do this, because I believe voting -1 in multi > choice should not be allowed, but ryan voted -1 on C so I had to counter > that ;) ) > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:11 AM Daniel Standish < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > >> > > >
