tutorial before getting the Utopian upvote, that's your conclusion, and as we are a team: fine.Although - as a Utopian moderator - I've also considered the possibility of re-filing this as a tutorial, I think it also has characteristics of a blog. The article contents are not exactly step-by-step tutorial-style, as @sha256md5 is setting up a code boilerplate for the streamOperations() method and criteria list. But if you feel, as a Utopian supervisor, this should be -refiled as a
@sha256md5: Please edit this post as "tutorial", fill-out the tutorial template parts, and respond to @mcfarhat afterwards. Do this this ASAP, please.
the mechanism of supervisors rejecting contributions after moderator approval for category / administrative reasons only (it's clear that the quality of this contribution on its own is fine as it is according to perceived quality).And in my role as Utopian Advisor, regarding platform strategy, I strongly disagree with approving, rejecting, approving, and having loads of discussions. That's, to my perception, ineffective, counter-productive and unprofessional. I will discuss that mechanism with my fellow Utopian Advisors @jedigeiss and @littleboy and @transisto and @elear - regarding
Thanks @scipio, I've updated my post (see my reply to @mcfarhat below). I appreciate the feedback and I'm definitely treating this as a learning experience toward future contributions.
tutorial before getting the Utopian upvote, that's your conclusion, and as we are a team: fine.Although - as a Utopian moderator - I've also considered the possibility of re-filing this as a tutorial, I think it also has characteristics of a blog. The article contents are not exactly step-by-step tutorial-style, as @sha256md5 is setting up a code boilerplate for the streamOperations() method and criteria list. But if you feel, as a Utopian supervisor, this should be -refiled as a
@sha256md5: Please edit this post as "tutorial", fill-out the tutorial template parts, and respond to @mcfarhat afterwards. Do this this ASAP, please.
the mechanism of supervisors rejecting contributions after moderator approval for category / administrative reasons only (it's clear that the quality of this contribution on its own is fine as it is according to perceived quality).And in my role as Utopian Advisor, regarding platform strategy, I strongly disagree with approving, rejecting, approving, and having loads of discussions. That's, to my perception, ineffective, counter-productive and unprofessional. I will discuss that mechanism with my fellow Utopian Advisors @jedigeiss and @littleboy and @transisto and @elear - regarding
Thanks @scipio, I've updated my post (see my reply to @mcfarhat below). I appreciate the feedback and I'm definitely treating this as a learning experience toward future contributions.
Good, good! We live and we learn! Steem on!