Re: Toggle appointment notification

[pietru@caramail.com]

Please stop ranting forever whilst telling us how to approach our work.
We know more than anyone how to conduct our field studies.

Regards
Pietru

> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2020 at 6:09 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: pietru@caramail.com
> Cc: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Toggle appointment notification
>
> * pietru@caramail.com <pietru@caramail.com> [2020-12-03 18:21]:
> > There are quite some things for elaboration.  Could we start with
> > some areas that concern the agenda.  I might not know all aspects,
> > and there will be things that might already have a solution.  In
> > other instances there could some capability that could be tedious
> > and some simplification could help us a lot.  What would be your
> > position on this?
>
> I see it this way: if anybody is using org-agenda that means that
> methodology of planning was wrong in th first place. Before 25-30
> years I was simply using notebooks, papers and text files in
> computer and I still have such and I can see nothing changed in my
> planning until today. Maybe I learned from different foundation.
>
> My planning always have objectives or purposes or goals.
>
> 1. Objective
>    - task
>    - task
>    - task
>
> All tasks have purpose to achieve its senior objective. If senior
> objective or purpose have been achieved those subordinate tasks become
> redundant.
>
> If there is objective THAT IS action to be solved. There is no need to
> write everywhere TODO and then search through plethora of files for
> variety of tasks in the same time. Sorry it makes no sense to me.
>
> When person goes to work that person is usually organized or somebody
> organized the person's work so it is usually quite clear what is to be
> done, because work is organized in chronological and logical
> order. What is to be done is already known. Only by lack of
> organization one has to use software program like org agenda to see
> what is to be done. If organizational methodology is good in the first
> place person will know before the day what is next.
>
> > Could start with org agenda because people currently use it more and
> > has more elaborate display.  Would it suit you?  Here we are quite
> > comfortable as work goes, but other teams frequently work at tough
> > sites, making ease of use paramount.
>
> System that person focuses on objective and does few things at a time
> related to objective is more useful.
>
> That means thinking from top to bottom. Not from bottom to top. Org
> mode is already set by methodology and by people insisting on it to
> drive other people into complex situations. I do believe it solves
> problems but it solves problems to organize the procrastination. If
> there is no procrastination then no org-agenda need to search through
> computer files to find out what is next to be done. People have been
> handling problems of life organizing before computers and before Org
> agenda. Its fundamental design is so much fine and nice, but when it
> comes to organizing things that is sadly one of last tools, there are
> many good software tools for organizing life, and many CRM programs
> are way better in doing so.
>
> What is meant with bottom-to-top thinking is when users write
> unrelated notes in vicinity of unrelated tasks inside of unrelated
> files and file names in vicinity of unrelated directories. That
> results with mess and further development of Org software with attempt
> to handle such mess. Then maybe in future they get some kind of idea
> what is objective for it.
>
> Thinking from top-to-bottom would mean to think of objectives. Of
> objective or purpose or goal is reached, subordinate information
> becomes redundant. When objectives are faced every day there is no
> need to mark tasks as TODO and consider the senior objective DONE only
> when subordinate tasks are marked as DONE. It is the other way
> around. When senior purpose have been achieved, all subordinate tasks
> become not important. I wish people would like more into real life
> situation and design software by how real life works.
>
> Software cannot teach people methodology of planning but it can easily
> drive them into unknown directions so much worse of those well
> established planning methodologies. And that is what Org mode
> does. The more users use it the more they get hooked on it and many
> will procrastinate while enjoying the illusion they are getting
> organized.
>
> Org agenda is summary of mess. It is not summary of organized
> structure. If one needs to use org agenda to find out what is next, or
> which meetings are to be done, or whatever like that, it means that
> organization from top to bottom is not there and person is much
> confused in life. I agree this may help many people.
>
> In last 5 years of using Org I have not almost ever used Org agenda
> for my planning. I have just tested its function, never required its
> use.
>
> My files are organized by subjects which are ordered by subordinate
> purposes for which sake subordinate tasks are being executed. Because
> of this simple methodology from top to bottom there is no need to
> "search" within agenda, or to ask computer to give agenda list. It is
> already there in its place in the file, in front of my face. Org mode
> could sort things way better in general but is not yet so.
>
> No wonder people devise their own systems and than train others like
> SMOS.
>
> SMOS - A Comprehensive Self-Management System
> https://smos.cs-syd.eu/features
>
> Much better systems for handling tasks are almost any CRM systems. As
> every task is related to people, if not other people than oneself. But
> we do tasks related to other people, and often supervise tasks that
> other people have to do as assigned by ourselves. While this basic
> premise is present in all CRM software systems I have encountered it
> is not in Org mode.
>
> 1. Create some action, describe what is to be done.
>
> 2. Relate to contact and relate to group or organization.
>
> 3. Assign to one person or group of people together.
>
> 4. Click to share.
>
> Computer should do the necessary repetitive tasks. One should be able
> to get list of all tasks assigned to other people or related to
> specific contacts or specific organizations.
>
> Both the contacts database and organizations database do not exist in
> Org mode as foundation for organizing. That is out of my world where I
> deal with people and groups of people. When I think of actions I think
> normally first of people or organizations and then what has to be done
> for them.
>
> Users who wish to organize life may spare their efforts by using
> software well designed for that. There are many choices:
>
> https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted#project-management
>
> Monica - Personal Relationship Manager
> https://github.com/monicahq/monica
>
> Jean
>