Easy methods to touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Kind on this web site to offer feedback on EEA Specs together with Assessment Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork offered by this web site.
Please establish the particular 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 workers member.
Producing useful suggestions
Useful suggestions on specs identifies
- the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs printed as HTML usually 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 recommended. Whereas it’s useful to establish motion that might resolve the difficulty, 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 greatest recognized as “Editorial”. Please word that the editor(s) of any specification, on the path of the related Working Group, take accountability for selections on writing model.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, equivalent to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embody content material it doesn’t at present tackle, is substantive and will probably be thought-about 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> accommodates Editorial and Substantive errors:
- Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it contains persimmons however they don’t seem to be fascinating
- 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 manner that doesn’t use passive voice is just not conducive to simple understanding. Please take into account rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions equivalent to
The specification takes the mistaken strategy, as a result of it doesn’t tackle 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 elucidate 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 manner which elements of the specification are problematic.
