I'm checking for consensus on the following idea:

Adding portalz (portalz@pleasetf.me) to the stewardship

portalz began a new thread in the zulip indicating interest in stewardship:

Hello, all. I'm portalz, and I've been on WebsiteLeague for a little bit over a year now on pleasetf.me. I have some intermittent time off work coming up for the next year or so, and I'm interested in getting more involved with Website League during some of my time off.
I'm a network engineer by trade, if that's useful at all for WebsiteLeague.

As the node operator for Please TF Me and a tech-leaning steward, I wish to vet and endorse portalz for stewardship. I brought it onto my node's staff due to its prior experience with moderation, its expertise in network engineering and site administration, and its thoughtful insights into both fields. I believe that its insight would definitely be helpful.

Meta Notes

As with the previous two stewardship votes, this is a vote requiring consensus:

this system requires a consensus to add a new person. in other words, one explicit objection on a vote like this is sufficient to not add someone to the stewardship unless the person objecting changes their vote. (i am noting this because we may wish to revisit this as we actually start to use this procedure.)

all Stewards have a right to object to a candidacy for any reason they feel prudent; however, for a vote like this—not related to [portalz] specifically, but just as a general rule of thumb since we are now using this procedure—i would hope and encourage people to be a little conservative with what they think justifies an explicit objection. if you have reservations about a candidacy that you also don't think justify killing the nomination entirely, this is what the intermediary option is for.

(original quote from Alyaza Birze in a previous vote for stewardship, modified to reflect this candidacy)

Edit Log:

edit on 28 OCT 2025 @ 6:36 PM EDT: fixed quote in meta notes to reflect portalz, added attribution for original quote to avoid potential confusion