+1 Binding Antonio.
> On 14-09-2023, at 13:02, Kamil Gabryjelski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 binding > >> On 14 Sep 2023, at 05:30, Evan Rusackas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Since it seems the process outlined in the SIP [1] has been largely >> non-controversial, I’d like to raise a VOTE >> >> Please vote accordingly: >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason >> >> P.S. If this vote goes succeeds, we’ll add some tracking sessions to the >> community calendar [2], and you’re all invited to attend/assist in the >> effort. Let us know in #operational-model-sip-review on Slack [3] if you’d >> like to take part in this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -e- >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/superset/issues/25218 >> [2] https://superset.apache.org/community/ >> [3] http://bit.ly/join-superset-slack >> >> Evan Rusackas >> Preset | preset.io >> Apache Superset PMC >> On Sep 8, 2023 at 11:11 AM -0600, Evan Rusackas <[email protected]>, >> wrote: >>> Hi all, and happy Friday! >>> >>> I’d like to kick off the official discussion for [SIP-100] Procedure for >>> tracking status and implementation of Superset Improvement Proposals >>> (SIPs). This is basically aligning on a process of tracking SIPs (and the >>> relevant GitHub Issues) more systematically through a kanban board, in >>> hopes that we can stay on top of these large items, and eventually (in >>> subsequent proposals down the road) evolve this process into a more formal >>> roadmapping procedure for Superset. Please read and let me/us know your >>> thoughts! >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/superset/issues/25218 >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Evan Rusackas >>> Preset | preset.io >>> Apache Superset PMC >
