The best way to touch upon EEA paperwork

Please use the Contact Kind on this web site to offer feedback on EEA Specs together with Evaluate Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied by way of this web site.

Please determine 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 workers member.

Producing useful suggestions

Useful suggestions on specs identifies

• the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs revealed as HTML typically have part markers (“§”) which are 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 recommended. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that might resolve the problem, it is very important clarify the issue because the Working Group might determine a unique decision is extra acceptable.

Suggestions that means using a unique definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is greatest recognized as “Editorial”. Please be aware that the editor(s) of any specification, on the course of the related Working Group, take duty for selections on writing fashion.

Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, corresponding 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 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 problem appropriately.

Good Suggestions would possibly 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> 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: Using double- and triple-negatives and never writing in a method that doesn’t use passive voice is just not conducive to straightforward understanding. Please take into account rephrasing this.

Nevertheless suggestions corresponding to

The specification takes the incorrect 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 elucidate 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 method which elements of the specification are problematic.