How you can touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to supply feedback on EEA Specs together with Assessment Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork offered by way of this web site.
Please determine 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 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 typically 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 urged. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that will resolve the problem, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group might resolve a distinct decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that implies using a distinct 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 course of the related Working Group, take accountability 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 embrace content material it doesn’t presently tackle, 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 problem 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> comprises Editorial and Substantive errors:
- Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it consists of persimmons however they don’t seem to be attention-grabbing
- Editorial: The frequent spelling is “donuts”, not “dough-nuts”. The spelling used will confuse the worldwide viewers of this specification.
- Editorial: The usage of double- and triple-negatives and never writing in a method that doesn’t use passive voice shouldn’t be conducive to simple understanding. Please contemplate rephrasing this.
Nonetheless suggestions reminiscent of
The specification takes the improper method, 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 could possibly be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any method which elements of the specification are problematic.
