+1 binding. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 7:36 AM Srabasti Banerjee < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non binding) > For the questionnaire, it will be good to have hover signs with > descriptions for new/less technical/business users taking the survey. This > will help guide those who are not familiar with the Airflow internals, to > be able to make educated choices rather than random guesses. Hardcore > technical questions should be optional so as to encourage all to attempt > the survey till the end, since inputs from UI/non technical aspects are > also good from the community. > > Happy to volunteer to be a "test taker" to ensure the verbage and > terminology is easy to understand for new users to Airflow:) > > Warm Regards, > Srabasti Banerjee > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 7:33 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just > > “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it instead. > > > > :) > > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 2:39 PM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? > > > > > > The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just > > > “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it > instead. > > > > > > Best, > > > Wei > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2025, at 7:38 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > >> Also, I think we "should" redact PII instead. > > > > > > > > What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? > > > > > > > > I think we need to be very precise here. Privacy is important for the > > > ASF - > > > > for example recently CSP (Content Security Policy) have been made a > lot > > > > stricter by the ASF and we had to remove some of the links to > external > > > > parties (youtube videos now are strictly "click to play" and youtube > > > > thumbnails are downloaded now from our site to protect privacy. And > > for > > > > example it is impossible to embed (I just tried with release > calendar) > > > for > > > > example Google Calendar in a wiki page hosted at cwiki.apache.org - > > > mostly > > > > because ASF does not want to "force" people into their data being > > > gathered > > > > by 3rd-parties by **just** looking at ASF pages. > > > > > > > > My understanding is that this is really a requirement that the PII > data > > > is > > > > only gathered to protect the survey from being abused and nothing > else > > > and > > > > we won't even see it (neither whoever runs the survey will collect > them > > > for > > > > other purposes than fraudulent mis-use detection and protection. The > > PII > > > > are very hard to not get on incoming requests - for example full > client > > > IP > > > > address is considered PII) and you will **get** it when someone > makes a > > > > request, you also need to use it in case you have spam or AI slop to > > > filter > > > > out obvious mis-use. And to be honest we as PMC don't even want to > deal > > > > with it. Also, we might ask the privacy team of ASF to review the > > survey > > > > setup before it is run in case there is no suitable ASF > infrastructure > > > > solution. > > > > > > > >> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the > end > > > of > > > > the calendar year? > > > > > > > > Might be a good idea to indeed formalise the calendar? > > > > Yep I think it's a good idea to announce we want to run it and ask > for > > > > potential sponsors. Say June - open it up with September to run it - > > > > November to finish and January next year to announce results ? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 6:12 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> + 1 binding > > > >> > > > >> A few nitpicks and questions > > > >> > > > >>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full > > > >> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. > Publish > > > >> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only > > > >> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent > > > >> answers. > > > >> > > > >> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. Also, I think we > > > "should" > > > >> redact PII instead. > > > >> > > > >>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the > cost > > > >> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome > such > > > >> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call for > > > >> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it > > > >> > > > >> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the > end > > > of > > > >> the calendar year? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Wei > > > >> > > > >>> On Dec 7, 2025, at 1:03 AM, Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> +1 binding - I think that these principles should be visible in the > > > wiki > > > >> :) > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Shahar > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, 00:09 Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It has been pointed out that the way we run our yearly community > > > survey > > > >>>> happens by inertia, without any formality to it. Now while I’m > never > > > one > > > >>>> for too much formality, some here would be helpful. > > > >>>> We discussed it in the Airflow PMC and with the outcome we now > > raise a > > > >>>> vote on the devlist in public. Proposal is we formally accept the > > > >>>> following: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * A yearly Airflow Community survey should be run, and it should > run > > > >>>> proximate to the end of the calendar year. > > > >>>> * The intent of this survey is to understand the use of the > software > > > >>>> and features used in order to understand where to focus future > > > >>>> development on and which features might be deprecated. But not > > > >>>> limited to. We are also interested in perceived quality and > > biggest > > > >>>> problems for which we even might need to elaborate a solution > > space. > > > >>>> * The questions for which are discussed on the dev list. We should > > > >>>> have a final lazy consensus to the dev list (or vote if we don’t > > see > > > >>>> consensus) on the questions before the survey is published. No > > > >>>> formal vote is required before finalising the questions or > > starting > > > >>>> the survey. It would be good to keep a majority of questions > > stable > > > >>>> such that we can see changes year-over-year. > > > >>>> * Questions must not involve collecting PII data. One exception is > > the > > > >>>> optional collecting of email addresses for delivering sponsor > > > >>>> incentives (i.e. training course, credits. See further on in > this > > > >>>> document) > > > >>>> * There is no formal position or person responsible for generating > > the > > > >>>> questions. As with everything ASF related, all individuals are > > given > > > >>>> the opportunity to participate, but their influence is based on > > > >>>> publicly earned merit. > > > >>>> * The PMC will promote the survey via airflow.apache.org website > - > > > >>>> including the banners on the website, and Apache Airflow Social > > > >>>> Media, Slack and similar channels. > > > >>>> * The survey should be conducted in a way such that not one person > > or > > > >>>> company gets more information than the others. > > > >>>> * The results should be processed/analysed and a summary published > > on > > > >>>> the Airflow website (and thus subject to normal PR review > process > > by > > > >>>> committers and the PMC). > > > >>>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full > > > >>>> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. > > Publish > > > >>>> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only > > > >>>> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent > > > >>>> answers. > > > >>>> * In case there is no appropriate survey platform run by the ASF > > > >>>> available for under the “apache.org” URL, the entity or people > > > >>>> running the survey will be free to host it elsewhere. > > > >>>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the > > cost > > > >>>> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome > > such > > > >>>> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call > for > > > >>>> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it. We will also > leave > > > >>>> freedom for the entity running the survey in the way to attract > > wide > > > >>>> audience (for example offering credits or free products as long > as > > > >>>> they do not suggest being PMC endorsed; and to refer Apache > > Airflow > > > >>>> according to the nominative fair use. > > > >>>> * In cases of such sponsorship, the entity will be listed as > sponsor > > > >>>> permanently in the published Survey results - this is in > > accordance > > > >>>> with the targeted-sponsorship policy of the ASF. We will inform > > > >>>> Fundraising of the ASF about this being a formal targeted > > > >>>> sponsorship by the PMC. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This is just writing down what we do already (with the exception > of > > > the > > > >>>> last two points which are a new addition and a more formal > approach > > to > > > >>>> the ad-hoc basis right now). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Jens on behalf of the Airflow PMC. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This email is calling a vote for the procedure, which will last > for > > 5 > > > >>>> days - which means that it will end on December 8th, 2025 22:00 > UTC. > > > >>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only PMC members and > > > >>>> Committer's votes are considered binding. Members of the community > > are > > > >>>> encouraged to vote with "(non-binding)". > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Consider this my +1 (binding) vote. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Please vote accordingly: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [ ] +1 approve > > > >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > > > >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
