The term "majority of a quorum" baffles me. It seems (1) redundant and (2) ambiguous. Redundant because a vote cannot be taken without a quorum present so why specify "majority of a quorum?" Ambiguous because it would seem to be subject to interpretation. Suppose an organization has 24 member and the bylaws state that 25% of the membership constitutes a quorum. Then 6 members would make up a quorum and 4 would be a majority of a quorum. Then suppose 20 members are present for the vote. A majority of those present would now be 11. Now 16 people vote in favor of the motion and 4 oppose. A majority of a quorum opposed. Does the motion fail? That's silly, of course, but in a world where millions of dollars can rest on the presence or absence of an "Oxford comma," it seems strange to use an ambiguous and redundant phrase. Any comments?