How you can touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Kind on this web site to supply feedback on EEA Specs together with Assessment 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 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 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 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 urged. Whereas it’s useful to establish motion that may resolve the difficulty, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group might determine a distinct decision is extra acceptable.
Suggestions that means using a distinct 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 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 embody content material it doesn’t presently handle, is substantive and will likely be thought of 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 to be:
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> accommodates Editorial and Substantive errors:
- Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it consists of 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 approach that doesn’t use passive voice will not be conducive to simple understanding. Please take into account rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions reminiscent of
The specification takes the unsuitable method, as a result of it doesn’t handle 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 establish in any approach which components of the specification are problematic.