touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to offer feedback on EEA Specs together with Assessment 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 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 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 can 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 steered. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that will resolve the difficulty, it is very important clarify the issue because the Working Group might resolve a special decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that implies the usage of 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 duty for selections on writing model.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, akin to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embrace content material it doesn’t at the moment tackle, 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 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> incorporates Editorial and Substantive errors:
- Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it contains persimmons however they don’t seem to be fascinating
- Editorial: The widespread 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 straightforward understanding. Please think about rephrasing this.
Nonetheless suggestions akin to
The specification takes the unsuitable method, 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 clarify what that’s (which concepts of Shevchenko?), nor give an understanding of the way it may very well be mounted. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any manner which components of the specification are problematic.
