+1 (binding) On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:41 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 2:55 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> вт, 28 июл. 2026 г., 20:44 Prashant Singh <[email protected]>: >> >>> +1, thank you for all the work and patience Alex >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Prashant >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 10:17 AM Russell Spitzer < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 4:03 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Please take a minute to vote on this spec change. >>>>> >>>>> Casting my own vote: +1 (non-binding). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:49 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > I'd like to start a vote to formalize remote signing configuration in >>>>> > the REST spec. >>>>> > >>>>> > The proposed changes introduce a new RemoteSigningConfig object in >>>>> the >>>>> > LoadTableResult schema, containing properties and headers that >>>>> signers >>>>> > should send back to the signing endpoint. >>>>> > >>>>> > The spec changes are in this PR: >>>>> > >>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16822 >>>>> > >>>>> > Relevant discussions: >>>>> > >>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/gz5nm2xzlhzbc2y3sfossgflnkbm6vq5 >>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/krvmczlbwpbn08c45w1dtvr5tor6ol1y >>>>> > >>>>> > Many thanks to everyone who provided feedback! >>>>> > >>>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>> > >>>>> > [ ] +1: Adopt the remote signing configuration changes >>>>> > [ ] +0: . . . >>>>> > [ ] -1: Do not adopt the remote signing configuration changes >>>>> because . . . >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks, >>>>> > Alex >>>>> >>>>
