Ilya, That's for formal votes (and in this case it would be any committer). However this isn't a formal vote! We're usually going based on a full community consensus. Your opinion certainly matters!
Sorry if we confused things, but the whole bylaw thing is for when more formality is required. - chip On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:12 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: > Based on the CloudStack bylaws (still in review state, sent out by Chip if > I'm not mistaken) and previous experience on this mailing list - it seemed > that only PPMC had vote ability. > > If I misinterpreted that, my apology. > > Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > I didn't know people are granted on voting power. Where did you see that in > this community? > > --Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >> >> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt know >> there was an existing proposal) yesterday >> >> Hari >> ________________________________________ >> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusa...@webmd.net] >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >> >> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for >> using linked clone or traditional clone. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >> >> +1 on making linked clones optional >> ________________________________________ >> From: Tamas Monos [tam...@veber.co.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >> >> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of >> linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run. >> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking >> into >> account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK- >> 529 >> >> Regards >> >> Tamas Monos DDI >> +44(0)2034687012 >> Chief Technical Office >> +44(0)2034687000 >> Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 7057 >> http://www.veber.co.uk >> >> Follow us on Twitter: >> www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on >> Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] >> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50 >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >> >> Kelven offered a reason earlier. >> >> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked- >> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce >> possible >> runtime problems." >> >> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack. >> >> --Alex >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das >>>> <koushik....@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> This http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r51/vsphere-51- >>> configuration-maximums.pdf mentions that the max. can be 32 for ESX 5.1. >>> Any specific reason to make it 16? Also it needs to be seen that this >>> limit works across all supported ESX versions. >>>>> >>>>> -Koushik >>>> >>>> Yes - the different versions having different limits complicates things a >>>> bit. >>>> 5.1 = 32, 5.0 = 16 4.x = 8? >>>> >>>> --David >>> >>> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a >>> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious, >>> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x >>> having a lower number? >>> >>> http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r40/vsp_40_config_max.pdf >>> http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration- >>> maximums.pdf >>> http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r51/vsphere-51-configuration- >>> maximums.pdf >>> >>> -chip > >
