+1, binding
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 16:47, Beto Dealmeida
wrote:
> +1, binding
>
> On 10/2/23 3:46 PM, Justin Park wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for
> > non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial,
> > I’d like to r
+1, binding
On 10/2/23 3:46 PM, Justin Park wrote:
Hi,
Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for
non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial,
I’d like to raise a VOTE.
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number
+1 (binding)
Best regards,
Michael S. Molina
> On 2 Oct 2023, at 20:27, John Bodley wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Justin Park wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for
>> non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has be
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Justin Park wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for
> non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial,
> I’d like to raise a VOTE.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or unti
Hi,
Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for
non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial,
I’d like to raise a VOTE.
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number
of votes are reached. Please vote accordingly:
[ ] +1
