Re: [off-topic/GTD]Only Next Actions list to rule them all ?

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4276 bytes --]

Thanks. Got it, I'm definitely not giving org agenda the importance it
deserves. Anyway, it might serve as an example of a simpler approach.

I have one question, though. There are actions that you know you have to do,
but that don't justify the creation of an outcome, or, in other words,
creating a project for this NA would be overkill, such as "Buy chocolate
:HOME:". What would be the outcome related to that? "Satisfy my desire of
sugar". Of course, this could be part of a "Monthly shopping", in this case
it is obvious, but sometimes I just have the feeling to buy chocolate, that
doesn't justify the creation of an outcome. What do you guys do in this
case? Keep another list for these kind of tasks?


On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> wrote:

> Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:
>
> > Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On the other hand, most of this could be achieved by using the agenda
> >> view and other org filtering features, and still keep a list of
> >> projects, sub-projects and next-actions, all in one, like:
> >>
> >> (Always ordered by priority)
> >>
> >> * Projects and Next Actions
> >> ** A project/outcome :PROJECT:
> >> *** TODO Do something :HOME:
> >> *** A subproject :PROJECT:
> >> **** TODO Do something! :HOME:
> >> *** TODO Do something else :OFFICE:
> >>
> >> Then, in the agenda, I can filter by HOME / OFFICE or TODO and would
> >> have a flat list of actions too.
> >>
> >> More configuration, but more you get, when you view the Projects and
> >> Next Actions list, the information of to which project this next action
> >> belongs, which might not be that important, as I'm interested on doing,
> >> not reviewing the landscape all the time, but could be useful sometimes
> >> (when the action is not specific enough you can't tell the related
> >> outcome).
> >>
> >> What do you guys think?
> >
> > Are you looking for us to convince you to organize your files by
> > project? :)
> >
> > IMO, how the user chooses to organize his/her files is a moot point,
> > since the magic of org-mode lies in the agenda. My agenda files consist
> > of several thematic files (currently 21), each containing a variety of
> > notes, projects, todos, etc. In the end, the organization of these files
> > doesn't matter, since org-mode's agenda commands do a fantastic job of
> > presenting me with clean lists of all my todos, while org-refile allows
> > me easily to move items to different files and or subheadings.
> >
> > I prefer this method because it allows me to jump to rich contextual
> > information from the agenda. For me, keeping next actions and projects
> > separate within the org files would eliminate a major strength of
> > org-mode and reduplicate what the agenda already does. But to each
> > his/her own! :)
>
> Agreed :)  The agenda is not just about calendar dates, the agenda is
>
>  - A calendar view of dates (single day, week, month) (C-c a a)
>  - A list of todo items collected from multiple org-agenda-files (C-c a t)
>  - A general search tool through all of your org-agenda-files (C-c a /)
>  - A list of things matching tags (C-c a m)
>
> and so much more (when you add custom agenda views etc).  Filtering lets
> you remove tasks quickly and easily based on tags or other criteria to
> get your lists down to what you are really looking at.  Then there's
> agenda restrictions (to file or subtree) to further limit the initial
> list of returned headlines.
>
> If you're thinking the agenda is just about dates then you need to
> revisit this and see how you can use this to your advantage.
>
> I personally keep related tasks together in the same subtree.  I collect
> multiple subtrees in the same org file so I can add / remove the entire
> thing from my agenda easily.  For example one client is one file - with
> multiple projects for that client in the same file.  That just makes
> sense logically (to me) - if I'm working on a task then stuff related to
> it is close by in the same org file.  The status of those tasks (next
> item, todo item, just some note with further information, etc) is
> irrelevant to where I place them in the tree - they're part of some
> larger thing (project?) and are a sublevel of that thing.
>
> -Bernt
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5209 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode