[05:30] <Flannel> wxl: Quorum is *not* defined as "what is reasonable".  RR defines quorum (by default) as the majority of members.  You can set in your bylaws something different, but by default it's that.  Also, "needing 4 of 7 to vote affirmatively to do something" is not the same as needing 4 for quorum.  Quorum is the number for a meeting to be a meeting.
[05:31] <Flannel> Within that meeting, by default with RR, a majority would be able to decide something.  (So if your quorum were 3, you could have 2 people vote for something for it to be a thing).  (RR defines some things that aren't just a simple majority.)
[05:31] <Flannel> Obviously, Ubuntu Councils don't really have the concept of a quorum for a meeting to be valid.  We've had meetings that aren't well-attended, but they're still meetings, they just can't do anything actionable.
[05:32] <TheMaster> (http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-11.htm)
[05:32] <Flannel> And that's partially because we don't actually use Roberts Rules, and partially because we're pragmatic and have a number of public-yet-not-official-meeting methods of getting in touch with people for their votes to make things actionable.
[05:33] <Flannel> Also, partially because I think people in FOSS prefer to use consensus as a method of deliberation when possible.
[15:44] <wxl> Flannel: a slight semantics issue, really.
[18:40] <Flannel> wxl: If "we don't really use parliamentary procedure" is considered a slight semantic issue, sure.