Review and Feedback Guide – Enterprise Ethereum Alliance

How to comment on EEA documents

Please use the contact form on this website to provide comments on the EEA Specifications (including review drafts and editorial drafts) and other documents made available through this website.

Please indicate in the subject field the specific version of the specification and document that provides this information, such as “EthTrust Security Levels, Editorial Draft, July 14, 2032” or “EEA Primer ‘Introduction to DAO Version 7′” to ensure feedback Effective delivery to relevant groups or staff.

generate useful feedback

Useful feedback on specs OK

• Relevant parts of the specification. EEA specifications published in HTML usually have section tags (“§”), which are links to relevant sections. In addition to noting the section names and numbers, it is also helpful to cite the link.
• Issues or suggested additions to the current text. While it is helpful to identify actions to solve the problem, it is also important to explain the problem because the work group may decide that a different solution is more appropriate.

Feedback suggesting different definitions, changed or improved grammar, broken links, etc. is best marked as “Editorial.” Please note that the editor of any specification is responsible for decisions on writing style, under the guidance of the relevant working group.

Feedback that identifies issues with the content itself, such as pointing out misstatements, or suggesting that the specification should contain content that is not currently addressed, is substantive and will be considered by the entire working group. The working group may request further clarification to help it properly resolve the issue.

Good feedback might look like this:

Section B.6 (vii) “Interesting Fruit” of the January 14 “Lunch Ideas” Editorial DraftContains editorial and substantive errors:

• Substance: No mention of donuts, persimmons included, but they’re not interesting
• Editorial: The common spelling is “donuts,” not “dough-nuts.” The spelling used will confuse international readers of this specification.
• Editorial: Writing in a way that uses double and triple negatives and does not use passive voice is detrimental to understandability. Please consider rephrasing this.

However, the feedback is as

This specification takes the wrong approach because it does not properly address Shevchenko’s thoughts on Mishima’s later works.

Processing difficulty is high. While it suggests something is missing, it fails to explain what that is (what was Shevchenko thinking?), nor how to fix it. Furthermore, it does not in any way identify which parts of the specification are problematic.