Re: [VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager
On 09/28/2011 10:43 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/28/2011 08:49 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
>
> board-bounces(a)ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
>>
>> my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm
>> going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which
>> is a
>> rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
>
> I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has
> proposed
> that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be
> "the" policy engine for VDSM.
I think the reason for the speculation is that we aren't being formal
enough in our proposals. I think Fedora Features are a good model for
making proposals like this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals
I'll work on some ovirt wiki pages for a similar project inclusion
template this afternoon.
From the board meeting call, we discussed creating a bit more
structure
to bring in new projects. Jim has volunteered to write this up for us
and circulate.
In light of this, I'm going to suspend the vote, so we can get that
drafted and reviewed on the board list. Then we will work with Adam to
get that info written up and we and resume. Adman, thx for the working
with us, mom is the first one with the full board assembled so you are
helping us get the kinks out of the process and get it written down.
This should hopefully resolve the concerns raised and allow us to not
create a precedent that we don't want to follow for later project
submissions.
sound good?
Carl.