The way 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 this web site.
Please determine the precise 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 subject, 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 revealed as HTML typically have part markers (“§”) which can be 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 steered. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that will resolve the problem, it is very important clarify the issue because the Working Group might determine a special decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that implies using a special definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is finest recognized as “Editorial”. Please be aware 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 embody content material it doesn’t at present handle, is substantive and might be thought of by the Working Group as a complete. The Working Group would possibly ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the problem appropriately.
Good Suggestions would possibly appear 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> comprises Editorial and Substantive errors:
Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it contains 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 shouldn’t be conducive to straightforward understanding. Please think about rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions reminiscent of
The specification takes the improper method, as a result of it doesn’t handle 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 elucidate what that’s (which concepts of Shevchenko?), nor give an understanding of the way it may very well be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any method which elements of the specification are problematic.
