+1(binding) Yufei
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 10:54 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner < [email protected]> wrote: > +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 >>>>>> >>>>>
