Talk:Quorum

message: Though the concept of Quorom is not different in other parts of the world, all the exemplar material relates to geographically specific usage.  Indeed, before my edit the phrase quorom-busting was seen to refer to a global perspective - it is not generally used in the United Kingdom.  I would like to see examples of how quorum is worked out in different parliamentry assmeblies and other deliberative bodies. Davidkinnen 16:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalise

message: We work on aerobes and anaerobes, on methanogens and metallogens, on genes and genomes, on quorum sensing, global signaling pathways, symbionts, pathogens and biofilm communities.  Welcome to the Wonderful World of Microbes!
--www.micro.cornell.edu//
i was wondering if anybody knew of this meaning, or if it is the same one.  Meommy89 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Different meaning?

message: HI,
please add notes about Quorum as a Cluster shared disk in IT.
Thanks
193.226.212.86 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluster disk 

message: :voters who are in favor of the status quo are able to use an obstructive strategy called, in the United States, quorum-busting. If a significant number of voters choose not to be present for the vote, the vote will fail due to lack of quorum, and the status quo will remain.
If quorum is a majority, and the vote (presumably) requires a majority, then how is this more effective than voting "Nay"? Unless quorum requires a stricter majority than the vote does, of course. 212.121.153.12 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are organizations that only require a majority vote of the members present to make some change.  In order to have a vote, there must be a minimum number of members present, a quorum.  If those for the status quo know that they are going to lose, but without them there won't be enough for the change to constitute a quorum, then they don't show up to make the quorum and the change can't take place. — Val42 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quorum-busting 

message: It seems to me that the article on the disappearing quorum is too short and does not merit a stand-alone article. It is not like the quorum article is too long... KarlFrei (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing quorum 

message: :Quorum-busting and attempts to thwart it are also a common feature during the annual motion debate related to 1989 Tiananmen massacre moved by a self-professed[citation needed] pro-democracy Member. The quorum is called to be counted from time to time by the Member's comrades, in order to force the pro-Beijing camp to keep some members in the chamber.
Ignoring the odd use of comrades, I'm confused by this. Isn't the lack of quorum what the pro-Beijing members want so the debate is shut down? So at most they would need to keep one member in as per the earlier examples, to call for a quorum count since it's possible no one else may do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: The current article explains that "quora" is not a valid pluralization of "quorum" but it does not mention what the correct pluralization is.  If the article is going to discuss how not to pluralize then it should at least mention how to do so correctly.  Could someone with this knowledge add a sentence to the introduction? Nippashish (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralization 

message: Yet again, a Wiki article written as though the world consists of the USA, with a few other countries mentioned at the end. The first half of the article which presnets as a general overview is in fact all about Robert's Rules, a source hardly known or used outside the USA and all examples are from the USA. Fine, but all this material then belongs under the country heading, USA. Either Wiki is an genuinely international resource or it is the private preserve of Americans.Unraed (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide reliable, secondary sources for the usage of "Quorum" in Tahiti, please be my guest and add them. It's a systemic bias, not malice that leads to the Amerocentric tone. A problem, but not one to be upset at editors over. Achowat (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to admit that as a visitor from the UK, I had no idea why "Roberts Rules" was mentioned in almost every paragraph like it was the de facto standard. The article on RR clearly states that it's entirely US-Centric. I believe this one, which seems to derive almost entirely from it, should too. just my 2p 86.173.12.117 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, what's the de facto standard for Rules for social clubs in your part of the world? Tell me and I'll buy the source and add the text. Achowat (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although Robert's Rules undoubtedly constitute a valuable resource for anybody trying to run a meeting, it is not a publication widely available in booksstores outside North America, nor is the authority of Robert's Rules generally recognized. The UK parliament has its own influential rules of procedure and the procedural rules of government bodies both national and local are established by both statute and custom. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric 

message: The final paragraph of the United States section of this article states, "The Internal Revenue Service requires that non-profit organizations that receive tax exemptions under Section 501(c)(3) have a quorum present at their required yearly meeting. If it is not, then not only can they not vote, but they must also have another meeting so that it then takes longer for them to make decisions."
This statement ends with opinionated whining, so the second sentence should definitely be removed.
I did a bit of research, and determined that regular meetings of any kind are not required for 501(C)(3) organizations, not being mentioned at all in http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf and other documents on the IRS website. Various 3rd-party legal guides indicate that 501(C)(3) Corporations may be required to hold an annual meeting, but this is only mentioned in connection with non-profit corporations, not all organizations, and the wording appears to indicate that this is either related to varying state laws, or varying types of non-profit corporations, or both.
There is absolutely no mention at all of requirements of a quorum (which is a subjective definition in any organization), or even majorities or voting. A non-profit organization may have their own bylaws or policies requiring this, but that's up to each organization.
I am therefore deleting this paragraph, as it appears to be entirely false. 97.121.43.81 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 501(C)(3) organizations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221185344/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/house/pubs/gtp/chapter4.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/gtp/chapter4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080815185831/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/odgers/chap0802.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/odgers/chap0802.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131021185349/http://www.studyparliament.ca/English/pdf/Newfoundland_Marland-e.pdf to http://www.studyparliament.ca/English/pdf/Newfoundland_Marland-e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120502062010/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm to http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This part right here:In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of 25 February 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bringing cots ...
I cannot find a single source backing up that this whole thing ever occurred. I'm going to delete it unless more substantial sources are provided. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this made up? 

message: I have moved the material pertaining to various interesting quorum games in U.S. legislatures to the U.S. section. Also, the material inappropriately defined quorum in terms of Robert's Rules, whereas those rules only propose one way to determine it. By editing the heading this is made more clear. -- cmhTC 00:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S.-specific material and robert's rules