Review and Feedback Guidelines – Enterprise Ethereum Alliance

How to comment on EEA documents

If you would like to provide comments on the EEA Specification, including Review Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and other documents available through this website, please use the contact form on this website.

Identify the specific versions of the specifications and documents that provide that information (e.g., “EthTrust Security Levels, Editor’s Draft, July 14, 2032” or “EEA Primer ‘DAO Version Introduction 7′”). Communicates effectively to relevant groups or employees.

Generate useful feedback

Here’s some useful feedback on the spec:

• Relevant parts of the specification. EEA specifications published in HTML typically have section markers (“§”) that are links to the relevant sections. In addition to writing down the section name and number, it is helpful to cite the appropriate link.
• Problems with the current text or suggested additions. Although it is helpful to identify actions that will solve the problem, it is also important to describe the problem, as the working group may decide that a different solution is more appropriate.

Feedback suggesting the use of different definitions, changes or improvements to grammar, broken links, etc. is best identified as “Editorial”. The editors of all specifications, under the direction of the relevant working group, are responsible for decisions about writing style.

Feedback that identifies problems with the content itself, such as pointing out erroneous descriptions or suggesting that content not currently covered in the specification should be included, is substantive and will be considered by the Working Group as a whole. The working group may request additional clarification to help address the issue appropriately.

Good feedback includes:

Section B.6 (vii) “Interesting Fruit” from the editor’s draft of “Lunch Ideas”, January 14 Contains editorial and substantive errors:

• Substantive: There is no mention of donuts and persimmons are included, but they are not interesting.
• Editorial: The common spelling is “donuts,” not “dough-nuts.” The spelling used will be confusing to international readers of this specification.
• Editorial: Using double and triple negatives and not writing in a way that does not use the passive voice does not help ease understanding. Please try to rephrase this.

However, the following feedback

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

It’s difficult to process. It suggests that something is missing, but fails to explain what it is (what is Shevchenko’s thinking?), nor does it provide any understanding of how to fix it. It also does not identify in any way which part of the specification the problem is.