Find out how to 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 via 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 employees 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 prompt. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that might resolve the problem, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group might resolve a unique decision is extra acceptable.
Suggestions that means the usage of a unique 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 choices on writing type.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, resembling noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embody content material it doesn’t at the moment deal with, is substantive and shall be thought-about 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 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 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 method that doesn’t use passive voice will not be conducive to simple understanding. Please contemplate rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions resembling
The specification takes the incorrect method, as a result of it doesn’t deal with 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 might be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any method which elements of the specification are problematic.
