How you can touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to supply feedback on EEA Specs together with Overview Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied by means of 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 printed 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 instructed. 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 acceptable.
Suggestions that implies the usage of a unique definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is finest recognized as “Editorial”. Please notice that the editor(s) of any specification, on the path of the related Working Group, take accountability for choices on writing type.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, comparable to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embody content material it doesn’t at present handle, is substantive and can be thought-about by the Working Group as an entire. The Working Group would possibly ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the difficulty appropriately.
Good Suggestions would possibly seem 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> 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 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 straightforward understanding. Please think about rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions comparable to
The specification takes the flawed method, as a result of it doesn’t handle 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 might be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t establish in any method which components of the specification are problematic.
