touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Kind on this web site to supply feedback on EEA Specs together with Evaluate Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied by 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 employees member.
Producing useful suggestions
Useful suggestions on specs identifies
the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs revealed as HTML usually have part markers (“§”) which are 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 may resolve the difficulty, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group could determine a unique decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that means using 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, comparable to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embrace content material it doesn’t at the moment deal with, is substantive and can be thought-about by the Working Group as a complete. The Working Group would possibly ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the difficulty 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> accommodates Editorial and Substantive errors:
Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it contains persimmons however they aren’t attention-grabbing
Editorial: The frequent 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 manner that doesn’t use passive voice is just not conducive to straightforward understanding. Please contemplate rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions comparable to
The specification takes the improper strategy, 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 manner which components of the specification are problematic.
