The way to touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to supply feedback on EEA Specs together with Evaluate Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied via this web site.
Please establish the particular model of specs and paperwork that present such info, e.g. “EthTrust Safety Ranges, Editor’s draft, 14 July 2032” or “EEA primer ‘Introduction to DAOs veersion 7′”, within the topic discipline, to ensdure the suggestions is efficeintly delivered to the related Group or workers member.
Producing useful suggestions
Useful suggestions on specs identifies
- the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs printed as HTML usually have part markers (“§”) which might be a hyperlink to the related part. Quoting that hyperlink is useful, along with noting the part identify and quantity.
- the issue with the present textual content, or the addition advised. Whereas it’s useful to establish motion that might resolve the difficulty, it is very important clarify the issue because the Working Group could determine a unique decision is extra acceptable.
Suggestions that means the usage of a unique definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is greatest recognized as “Editorial”. Please notice that the editor(s) of any specification, on the route of the related Working Group, take duty for selections on writing model.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, reminiscent of noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embody content material it doesn’t at present tackle, is substantive and will probably be thought of by the Working Group as an entire. The Working Group may ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the difficulty appropriately.
Good Suggestions may appear like:
Part B.6 (vii) “Attention-grabbing Fruit” of the 14 January Editor’s Draft of “Lunch concepts” <https://entethalliance.org/specs/drafts/2028-01-14-Lunch/#sec-interesting-fruit> incorporates Editorial and Substantive errors:
- Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it consists of persimmons however they aren’t attention-grabbing
- Editorial: The widespread spelling is “donuts”, not “dough-nuts”. The spelling used will confuse the worldwide viewers of this specification.
- Editorial: Using double- and triple-negatives and never writing in a method that doesn’t use passive voice will not be conducive to simple understanding. Please take into account rephrasing this.
Nonetheless suggestions reminiscent of
The specification takes the unsuitable strategy, as a result of it doesn’t tackle the concepts of Shevchenko on Mishima’s later works correctly.
Is troublesome to course of. Whereas it means that one thing is lacking, it fails to clarify what that’s (which concepts of Shevchenko?), nor give an understanding of the way it may very well be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t establish in any method which components of the specification are problematic.
