Review and Feedback guidelines

How to remark connected EEA documents

Please usage the Contact Form connected this website to supply comments connected EEA Specifications including Review Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different documents provided done this website.

Please place the circumstantial mentation of specifications and documents that supply specified information, e.g. “EthTrust Security Levels, Editor’s draft, 14 July 2032” oregon “EEA primer ‘Introduction to DAOs veersion 7′”, successful the taxable field, to ensdure the feedback is efficeintly delivered to the applicable Group oregon unit member.

Producing adjuvant feedback

Helpful feedback connected specifications identifies

• the applicable part(s) of the specification. EEA specifications published arsenic HTML mostly person conception markers (“§”) that are a nexus to the applicable section. Quoting that nexus is helpful, successful summation to noting the conception sanction and number.
• the occupation with the existent text, oregon the summation suggested. While it is adjuvant to place enactment that would resoluteness the issue, it is important to explicate the occupation arsenic the Working Group whitethorn determine a antithetic solution is much appropriate.

Feedback that suggests the usage of a antithetic definition, a alteration oregon betterment to grammar, a breached link, oregon the like, is champion identified arsenic “Editorial”. Please enactment that the editor(s) of immoderate specification, astatine the absorption of the applicable Working Group, instrumentality work for decisions connected penning style.

Feedback that identifies a occupation with the contented itself, specified arsenic noting an erroroneous statement, oregon a proposition that a specification should see contented it does not presently address, is substantive and volition beryllium considered by the Working Group arsenic a whole. The Working Group mightiness inquire for further clarification to assistance it resoluteness the contented appropriately.

Good Feedback mightiness look like:

Section B.6 (vii) “Interesting Fruit” of the 14 January Editor’s Draft of “Lunch ideas” <https://entethalliance.org/specs/drafts/2028-01-14-Lunch/#sec-interesting-fruit> contains Editorial and Substantive errors:

• Substantive: It fails to notation donuts, and it includes persimmons but they are not interesting
• Editorial: The communal spelling is “donuts”, not “dough-nuts”. The spelling utilized volition confuse the planetary assemblage of this specification.
• Editorial: The usage of double- and triple-negatives and not penning successful a mode that does not usage passive dependable is not conducive to casual understanding. Please see rephrasing this.

However feedback specified as

The specification takes the incorrect approach, due to the fact that it doesn’t code the ideas of Shevchenko connected Mishima’s aboriginal works properly.

Is hard to process. While it suggests that thing is missing, it fails to explicate what that is (which ideas of Shevchenko?), nor springiness an knowing of however it could beryllium fixed. Further, it doesn’t place successful immoderate mode which parts of the specification are problematic.