Read that last bit carefully: “If the word Quorum is used… it is referring to all @s.” We don’t want it to refer to all @s… just 1/2 of them

so

per Qwazukee; I was going to propose a fix myself along similar lines to this one, but it’s important we don’t leave another loophole in the wording.

I think it still works, Quorum is referring to all @s, meaning a Quorum of all @s, which is 1/2+1. But I’ll s/k in favor of being very specific before this passes if people still think that that is a valid concern.

It’s ambiguous, and the consequences of the interpretation we don’t want being the “correct” one are pretty bad (requiring a unanimous vote for proposals and CFJs).

I’ll propose a fix then.

does this work? :

Quorum of a subset of @s is half the number of @s in that subset, rounded down, plus one. If the word Quorum is used without qualifying which subset of @s it is referring to, it is referring to a Quorum of all @s.

Yes, that works (as long as it’s not in a rule that treats idle @s as @s; but the Glossary is not such a rule).