Three-fifths may be slightly swifter than two thirds, while still demanding more than a simple majority.

I have no issue with dropping the requirement, I’d be wary of making it as low as 50% though

we've had a hard time even getting 18 people to vote in a timely fashion. as things stand, 22 votes is a majority.

obviously, in creating this thread i'm identifying what i think is going to be a problem and trying to head it off before it becomes one. my feeling is: to reflect the near-doubling we should reduce our effective quorum to either 50% or 60% (i added 55% as an intermediary option but i think it's a bleh one, personally).

at this size, that's still going to be a minimum of 20 people having to weigh in before anything is binding; i think if nobody has some kind of objection to at least consider in the first 20 responses then we're unlikely to get many after that point. i doubt there are many things even 20 of us can agree on without having to compromise.

60% seems fine - 55% feels a little low, and 50% is definitely too low. Would rather decisions take longer than not achieve adequate consensus.

I'm in the rare ballpark of preferring 57.5% myself, but 55% is fine too

I'm going to go with 2/3 or 3/5 now; I think the issue isn't the ratio, but rather the amount and activity expectations of stewards, that make a quorum less likely to be attainable.

not good at words but this would do what i expect