I like this idea, but I wonder about the phrasing. I wouldn't want my more... loquacious colleagues to misinterpret it as an imperative ("please do not send me a wall of text").
Aha! I've been trying to introduce people to the abbreviation "NRN - No Reply Needed" for text messages. It seems such a waste for someone to just text back with a reply of "ok" and pay 25c or whatever for the privilege when you don't really need to know they received it. These 3 characters at the end of a message could save a great deal over time.
Interesting point. Is VSRE something that empowers the respondent to choose: A "social out from a full polite response"? Or is it a "social obligation to provide a short response?"
Make it explicit - VSRA vs VSRE, acceptable vs expected. But this makes the whole thing unnecessarily complex and I would prefer VSRA - I am fine with getting a very short reply. If it is not possible a, long reply is also fine but try to keep it as short as possible.
Different suggestions from the comments.
CURT - condensed unfussy reply tolerable
CURT - CURT unfussy reply tolerable
NLRN - no long reply needed
TCRA - très courte réponse attendue
VSRA - very short reply acceptable
VSRO - very short reply okay
VSRW - very short reply welcome
That got forked quickly. And we need a standardization committee. Or maybe a poll will do.
I came to the comments hoping this would be here. "Expected", well, seems to place an additional expectation on the recipient, whereas "Welcome" merely invites an additional option.
Abbreviation needed? Phrase the question such that a curt response is encouraged. A la, "Herbert: we're meeting tomorrow at 2 in my office to discuss the new release of jquery. Be there?" (The question tends to elicit a "Yes" or "No")
Then you probably shouldn't use it with them. After all, that is exactly what it's for.... OTOH, those folks probably won't pay attention, or may even protest, "it was a short reply!"
