[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Bernt Hansen's
From: |
rene |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Bernt Hansen's |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:22:48 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Sebastien Vauban <address@hidden> writes:
> rene wrote:
>
> > I find his code pretty close to what GTD should look like. There are a few
> > things though that could be twicked a bit in order to comply with David
> > Allen's new book on Getting Things Done.
>
> Can you detail them, for our own information, please?
Here are a few thoughts. Feel free to provide feedback and enhancements.
Associating what GTD calls "Areas of Responsibility" to orgmode
categories is great. But launching a search for these categories (areas of
responsibility) has to be hardcoded in everyone's config file. It
would be great if this could work like for Tags (C-a a M) or Todo keywords
(C-a a T).
Why not have a "C-a a R" which would prompt us for our own various
Areas of Responsibility.
Of course there is an org-agenda-filter-by-category function but this
function should then work more as org-agenda-filter-by-tag where the
category would either be selected with a fast selection letter or when
you hit the TAB key you're being prompted for a list of possible
categories.
Within GTD, the way you are to choose which task to perform never
relies on a preset priority level but on three limiting criteria,
namely
- your context: What can I do where I am?
- your time available: How much time do I have?
- your energy: How much energy do I have
It's easy to implement your context as Tags: @home, @computer,
@office, @internet, @errands, etc. It's therefore easy to
extract/filter tasks pertaining to a particular context using "C-a a M".
I find the org-effort-property misleading. It looks like you're
talking about the energy criteria but in fact this deals with the
estimated time duration of a task. Could one straighten this up?
The estimated "task-duration" could then replace the misleading
"org-effort" property.
The "energy" level should work as the org-priority. "A" could mean
the task will require from me a high level of priority, whereas "C"
could mean a low level of priority.
In David Allen's new book, which should be available early 2015, the
three basic steps for the GTD method are: Capture, Clarify and
Organize. In terms of vocabulary, he's not talking about a "task to
refile" but rather an "action to clarify and organize", which in orgmode
would consist in assigning the right: context (tag), duration, energy,
project, where a project would pertain to a area of responsibility
(category).
For me this notion of projects (and sub-projects, sub-sub-projects, etc.) in
org-mode is not that easy to deal with. Maybe I need to investigate
things a bit more. Any idea would be welcome.
Since the Weekly Review is such a key part in the GTD methodology,
I don't think there's any real need to differentiate between active vs stuck
projects. Every 7 to 10 days, you will go over your projects and thus
identify the ones that need a next action to be defined. The ones
that are considered as DONE, if all their sub-actions and sub projects
are themselves done or canceled.
--
rene
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [O] Bernt Hansen's,
rene <=