Ballot Details: Resolve Issue #4: document balloon memory statistics (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Should the TC accept changes listed in the description to resolve issue 4, for inclusion in specification version(s) "virtio-v1.1-cs01", and future versions of the specification?
Ballot Description Please vote Yes if you agree with all of the following.
If you disagree, please vote No.
If you don't have an opinion, please vote Abstain.

I move that:
The TC agrees to resolve the following specification issue:
Issue #4: document balloon memory statistics
--------------------------------------
Linux kernel provides some balloon memory statistics that were not included in
the specs. Include them to avoid any ID clashes in the future.

The patch has been reviewed on the mailing list:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/201803/msg00154.html

--------------------------------------

The TC accepts the following proposed changes to the specification:
--------------------------------------
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/201803/msg00154.html
--------------------------------------

The TC agrees to include the above change(s) in specification version(s) "virtio-v1.1-cs01", and future versions of the
specification.

--------------------------------------

Reminder: A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. As
the Virtio TC has adopted a standing rule to conduct business only by
electronic ballot, without Meetings, a Voting Member who fails to cast a ballot
in two consecutive Work Product Ballots loses his or her voting rights at the
close of the second ballot missed.

--------------------------------------
Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Sunday, 18 March 2018 @ 7:30 pm EDT
Yes 6 100
No 0 0
Abstain 0
Open Date Sunday, 11 March 2018 @ 7:30 pm EDT
Close Date Sunday, 18 March 2018 @ 7:30 pm EDT
Ballot Type Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 6
Eligible members who have voted 6 of 6 100%
Eligible members who have not voted 0 of 6 0%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%
Abstain 0

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (UTC) Comments
* Carabas, Mihai Oracle Yes 2018-03-12 14:56:00
* Hajnoczi, Stefan Red Hat Yes 2018-03-15 13:59:00
* Huck, Cornelia Red Hat Yes 2018-03-13 15:03:00 1
* Kiszka, Jan Siemens AG Yes 2018-03-15 20:32:00
* Pasic, Halil IBM Yes 2018-03-12 12:31:00 1
* Tsirkin, Michael S. Red Hat Yes 2018-03-11 23:57:00

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
Huck, Cornelia
Red Hat
Yes FWIW, I agree with Halil's suggestions, but also agree we can improve the text later.
Pasic, Halil
IBM
Yes I overlooked this and did not participate in the public discussion of this proposal. I would have preferred:
* Instead of "for starting new applications" something like "for allocation". I don't understand this starting new applications story.
* Instead of "caching files from disk" just "caching files" or "caching files hosted in persistent memory". I dislike usage of "disk" here (not a term defined by the spec, and IMHO raises more questions than it answers).

Since IMHO it's better to have these documented in some way than not having them documented at all I'm voting 'Yes'. We can improve on this later.