[Foundation-l] Are these "majority consent agreements" even valid?

Florence Devouard Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Tue May 1 20:51:53 UTC 2007

Anthony wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>> chair>all in favor say aye
>> person 1>aye
>> chair>aye
>> person 3>aye
>> chair>all opposed say no
>> chair>person 4, are you there?
>> At that point either person 4 acknowledges his/her presence, and eir
>> vote is recorded as abstaining, or else there is no response, and you
>> have to assume the person lost their internet connection.  In the
>> latter case there is potential for dispute, I suppose, but since a
>> "majority of the Trustees present at a meeting at which a quorum is
>> present" voted in favor, it doesn't really matter, as per the bylaws
>> this "shall be the act of the Board of Trustees".
> Then again, maybe it does matter.  I apparently just reinvented the
> concept of the [[disappearing quorum]].  If it takes 4 members to make
> a quorum, and 3 members vote yes, then if the fourth person votes
> "yes", the measure passes.  If the fourth person votes "no", the
> measure passes.  If the fourth person votes "present", the measure
> passes.  However, if the fourth person gets disconnected, one could
> argue that there is no quorum, and the measure fails.  Fun stuff, and
> a reason that the WMF might want to redefine what constitutes a
> quorum.
> Anthony

Actually, though we never went so far to that at board level, we explore 
d a lot this notion at the spcom. We had chosen a system relying on a 
quorum based on presence, rather that a quorum based on total 
membership. With security level of a minimum of presence if my memory is 
This led us to constant recalculation of what the quorum was at each 
meeting, which was not very helpful.

Our quorum is fixed and based on total members. So 4 people.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list