The e-mail charter resonates more with me. Partially because it is shorter. And partially because it is more applicable to me.
Which is your favorite? What do you think is missing?
My favorite is "no need to reply." I spell it out since folks don't generally know the acronym. This was great for me on a production support day. I need to send updates to a number of people. Most of which like to reply with "thanks" to show they know you are working on a weekend or be involved or to show they are reading the updates. Last time, I put no need to reply on all updates but the last one. It greatly cut down on the unnecessary e-mails. It also let me focus on what I was supposed to be doing - supporting production and not reading thank you e-mails with the same subject line of my e-mail and could potentially be a question/problem/action item. I omitted it from the last e-mail because I didn't know if they could hold it in entirely. And because at that point I wasn't checking e-mail for the rest of the weekend so it wasn't as important.
Blind-carbon-copy of your reply to a common (and often much higher level) boss is a mortal sin.
Emailing Word or Excel documents as attachments as a way of having multiple people edit a common document (say a proposal) is a mortal sin.
IMHO, nearly all attachments should not be attached. For document sharing, use Dropbox, or GIT or nearly anything else.
I've noticed that the expectation of value in email has gotten much worse in the past few years. I think its caused by Facebook, Twitter, or even SMS messaging, many folks think that conversations on these are sufficient, or even are the exclusive answer. I know that I am FaceBook "Friends" with several of my nieces and nephews (teenagers) and while they are online constantly, they don't use email.
Disclaimer: I've been using email constantly since 1977, and keep my email as a reminder of what I promised and what other folks agreed to. I have seen many great new tools that claim to do collaboration better, but for some things, simple text email is best.
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:An interesting read. One fellow I know has been using the "EOM" convention for a while now, but I haven't seen it described before.
Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the Giant Consulting company that I was part of instigated voicemail. A lot of folks used "EOM" spoken as Eee-Oh-Emm
at the end of messages. I think it was to clearly show that the message was over and not just that your phone connection died.
I expect that EOM came from military communications, but that is just a guess.