I think that would always leave it open for debate what level of attendance actually constitutes a quorum at any moment, to me pick a reasonable number and have that be the quorum. You would not want to make a million dollar decision and then have someone like me say that the meeting did not actually meet the criteria set in the constitution so to me a agreed upon number would always be preferable. I think it should not be higher than 20 and not less than 12 but who am I to say. In addition, if we want to be sticky, we could review annually what constitutes a quorum to better reflect actual membership participation. Generally quorums are set so that members of a board or organization can not take advantage of a poorly attended meeting by passing something the majority would have rejected. Gerhard gerhardk@xxxxxxx On 5-Mar-09, at 5:09 PM, Doug Bale wrote: > You and Joan are right, Gerhard. My mistake. How's this: The minimum > number of members necessary to constitute a quorum at any given > meeting shall be a simple majority of those who have attended > meetings or participated online in one or more of the group's forums > within the previous six months. (We can haggle over the period, if > we accept the principle.) --- MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo> Manage your account options at <//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>