AbstractHuman variation in labeling is often considered noise. Annotation projects for machine learning (ML) aim at minimizing human label variation, with the assumption to maximize data quality and in turn optimize and maximize machine learning metrics. However, thisconventional practice assumes that there exists a *ground truth*, and neglects that there exists genuine human variation in labeling due to disagreement, subjectivity in annotation or multiple plausible answers. In this position paper, we argue that this big open problem of human label variation persists and critically needs more attention to move our field forward. This is because human label variation impacts all stages of the ML pipeline: *data, modeling and evaluation*. However, few works consider all of these dimensions jointly; and existing research is fragmented. We reconcile different previously proposed notions of human label variation, provide a repository of publicly-available datasets with un-aggregated labels, depict approaches proposed so far, identify gaps and suggest ways forward. As datasets are becoming increasingly available, we hope that this synthesized view on the “problem” will lead to an open discussion on possible strategies to devise fundamentally new directions.