+1 binding On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 19:47 John Bodley <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:03 AM 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 > > > > >
