Find out how to touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to offer feedback on EEA Specs together with Evaluation Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork offered by means of this web site.
Please establish the precise model of specs and paperwork that present such data, e.g. “EthTrust Safety Ranges, Editor’s draft, 14 July 2032” or “EEA primer ‘Introduction to DAOs veersion 7′”, within the topic area, to ensdure the suggestions is efficeintly delivered to the related Group or employees member.
Producing useful suggestions
Useful suggestions on specs identifies
the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs printed as HTML typically have part markers (“§”) which are a hyperlink to the related part. Quoting that hyperlink is useful, along with noting the part title and quantity.
the issue with the present textual content, or the addition recommended. Whereas it’s useful to establish motion that will resolve the difficulty, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group could resolve a special decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that means the usage of a special definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is finest recognized as “Editorial”. Please word that the editor(s) of any specification, on the route of the related Working Group, take accountability for selections on writing fashion.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, reminiscent of noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embrace content material it doesn’t presently deal with, is substantive and might be thought of by the Working Group as a complete. The Working Group may ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the difficulty appropriately.
Good Suggestions may seem like:
Part B.6 (vii) “Fascinating 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 contains persimmons however they aren’t fascinating
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 approach that doesn’t use passive voice is just not conducive to simple understanding. Please contemplate rephrasing this.
Nonetheless suggestions reminiscent of
The specification takes the flawed method, as a result of it doesn’t deal with the concepts of Shevchenko on Mishima’s later works correctly.
Is tough 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 could possibly be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t establish in any approach which components of the specification are problematic.
