[ad_1]
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 Overview Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied by means of 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 area, 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 typically 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 prompt. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that might resolve the difficulty, you will need to clarify the issue because the Working Group might resolve a special decision is extra acceptable.
Suggestions that means the usage of a special 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 route of the related Working Group, take accountability for choices on writing type.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, comparable to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embody content material it doesn’t presently handle, is substantive and can 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 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 straightforward understanding. Please think about rephrasing this.
Nonetheless suggestions comparable to
The specification takes the fallacious method, as a result of it doesn’t handle 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 fastened. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any method which elements of the specification are problematic.
[ad_2]
Source link
