Commenting on EEA documents
Please use the Contact Form On this website, you can provide feedback on EEA Specifications, including the Review Drafts and Editorial Drafts as well as other documents.
Please indicate the version of documents and specifications that contain this information. “EthTrust Security Levels, Editor’s draft, 14 July 2032” The following are some examples of how to use “EEA primer ‘Introduction to DAOs veersion 7′”To ensure feedback is delivered effectively to the Group, or the staff member, please enter the subject in the field.
Feedback is helpful: How to produce it
Feedback on the specifications identified
- The relevant part(s). EEA specifications that are published in HTML usually have section markers.”§”( ) are links to the relevant section. It is useful to cite the link, as well as noting section number and name.
- It is important to explain the problem or addition that you have suggested. It is useful to specify the action that will resolve the problem, but it is also important to describe the problem. The Working Group might decide a different solution is better.
If you receive feedback suggesting a different or better definition, an improved grammar or spelling, a broken or incorrect link, etc., it is best to mark the message as “Editorial”. Please note that decisions regarding the style of writing are made by the editors of any specification, under the direction of the Working Group.
Feedback that highlights a problem within the content of the specification itself, for example, a typographical error or a suggestion a specification include a content it doesn’t currently address, are substantive feedback and will be taken seriously by the Working Group. The Working Group may ask for clarifications to resolve the issue.
Good Feedback might look like:
Section B.6 (vii) “Interesting Fruit” The 14 January Editor’s draft of “Lunch ideas” <https://entethalliance.org/specs/drafts/2028-01-14-Lunch/#sec-interesting-fruit> There are errors both in the text and the editing.
- It is not substantive: it does not mention donuts and includes persimmons, but they aren’t interesting
- Editor’s Note: The usual spelling of the word is “donuts”. “dough-nuts”. This spelling will confuse international audiences of this specification.
- Editorial: Use of double- or triple-negatives, and writing without using passive voice are not conducive for easy understanding. Please rephrase this.
The feedback that you receive is a good example.
The specification is wrong because it does not address Shevchenko’s ideas on Mishima later works.
It is difficult to understand. It suggests something is missing but fails to specify what it is (which Shevchenko ideas?It does not explain what is missing (which ideas of Shevchenko? In addition, the document does not identify in any manner which parts are problematic.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
Source: entethalliance.org
