Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Bruce Snyder
Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all satisfied with the current state of this board report. Therefore, I will submit the report today as it is due tomorrow. Bruce On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:50 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > Perfect, thank you Robbie. > > Bruce > > On Mon

Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Clebert Suconic
If you could allow me one hour. I’m checking what I can add now. On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:16 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all > satisfied with the current state of this board report. Therefore, I will > submit the report today as it

Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Clebert Suconic
@Bruce Snyder I just checked and it looks good to me. >From my POV it's ready to go. On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:39 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > If you could allow me one hour. I’m checking what I can add now. > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:16 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: >> >> Given the lack of r

Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 for me. You can send it. Thanks ! Regards JB On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 6:14 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > > Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all > satisfied with the current state of this board report. Therefore, I will > submit the report today as it is due tomorrow.

Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Matt Pavlovich
+1 (non-binding) looks good to go > On Oct 11, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > > Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all > satisfied with the current state of this board report. Therefore, I will > submit the report today as it is due tomorrow. > > Bruce >

Re: ASF Board Report due Oct 12

2022-10-11 Thread Bruce Snyder
The report has been published. Bruce On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 1:22 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > +1 (non-binding) looks good to go > > > On Oct 11, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Snyder > wrote: > > > > Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all > > satisfied with the current st