Hi all, Thank you for your patience while I tallied the votes! For reference purposes, here <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7mbztc6dchh73c7cnn7sjm1qtt6gj5zw> is a link to the vote thread.
As a reminder the options were: - 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) *Results (Binding Votes Only)* Based on the results, and following the rules that only binding votes are counted, with voters able to submit a fractional vote between -1 and +1 per option, Option B (Dag) won. We will therefore prefer "Dag" in docs, and use DAG only when referring to the class or import itself. [image: image.png] *Additional Context* Because this vote was about convention (not code or architecture), and because the discussion around voting method itself was interesting, I ran a few "what-if" tallies to see how the outcome might vary: - If all votes (binding + non-binding) were counted, including multiple options per person, Option B (Dag) still wins, but by a much closer margin. [image: image.png] - If only the main binding vote (single strongest +1 per voter) were considered, Option B (Dag) and Option C (DAG) would have been tied. [image: image.png] - If the main vote from both binding and non-binding voters were included, Option C (DAG) would have narrowly won) [image: image.png] (For transparency, Ryan Hatter submitted two +1s, so I pinged him to clarify why should be considered in the single-vote scenario) *Observation* It's interesting that the outcome differs slightly between binding and non-binding voters, with contributors leaning toward Dag and the broader community favouring DAG. It's a nice reminder that Airflow serves two audiences: Contributors leaning toward a cleaner, more readable style, and the wider community still attached to the familiar "DAG" identity. Both are valid, and it's interesting to see how the project's voice is shifting as we grow. *Next Steps* Since we'd already started shifting documentation toward Dag when it seemed to be the general preference, the vote results essentially confirms that direction. We'll continue using Dag in docs going forward, keeping DAG only when referring to the class/import itself. No changes are needed for existing references unless a doc is being actively updated. If anybody would like to call a separate vote to create a Dag alias for DAG, they are more than welcome to. I don't think the results of this vote should preclude us from doing that at a later date if the community agrees. If anyone has strong objections or follow-ups, please share them by EOD Friday, otherwise we'll consider this settled. Constance --
