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

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

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

Hello list,

This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you: For
Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?

I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item under
its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a mix
of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there with
sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it was
too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
even though I was getting lost.

So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to try
a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next actions
is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects. I've
lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I can do
this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is not
that important.

So, basically, a bunch of projects and next actions, weekly review,
collect-process-organize-review-do and that's all.

Who knows, over time I might find that there's a better way... well, but
Keeping It Simple is sometimes the best approach, even though org is so
flexible that one might fall in the rabbit hole :)

Thanks,

Marcelo.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1590 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

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

[Manish]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you: For
> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
>
> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item under
> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a mix
> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there with
> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it was
> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
> even though I was getting lost.
>
> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to try
> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next actions
> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects. I've
> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I can do
> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is not
> that important.

Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.  You
can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to be
designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a single
list.

-- 
Manish

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

[Desmond Rivet]

Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
>> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
>> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you: For
>> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
>> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
>>
>> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item under
>> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a mix
>> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there with
>> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it was
>> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
>> even though I was getting lost.
>>
>> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to try
>> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next actions
>> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects. I've
>> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I can do
>> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is not
>> that important.
>
> Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.  You
> can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to be
> designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
> command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a single
> list.

I use a single file which contains both next actions (NAs) and projects,
with NAs living under the relevant project.  NAs have TODO state and
tags for the contexts.

Well, that's not 100% true.  My GTD file contains NAs and a more generic
concept which I'm calling "Categories", since a Category uses a CATEGORY
property.  Categories are just grouping items.  Projects are a special
kind of Category which a) have a TODO state (normal Categories do not)
and b) tack a "p_" onto the beginning of the CATEGORY label and c) have
a "project" tag.  Basically a project is a Category that you can
"finish" and which can be immediately identified as a project with a
query (because of the project tag).

In this way, NAs always live under a Category (I have a "Misc" Category
to catch NAs which don't seem to fit anywhere else), and some Categories
are projects.  I don't nest Categories into sub-Categories, but I think
I could do it - projects are just Categories with some extra TODO state
and tags, and heading level doesn't really enter into it.  Similarly,
NAs are TODO items which do NOT have the project tag.

When I collect all my NAs into an agenda view, I immediately see the
CATEGORY label in the first column and I can see which NAs belong to a
project and which don't, since I tacked a "p_" onto the Categories which
represent projects.

Also, my waiting list is defined as items in the WAITING state.  I keep
my someday list as a seperate file.

-- 
Desmond Rivet

Pain is weakness leaving the body.

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

[Bernt Hansen]

Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
>> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
>> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you: For
>> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
>> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
>>
>> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item under
>> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a mix
>> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there with
>> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it was
>> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
>> even though I was getting lost.
>>
>> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to try
>> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next actions
>> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects. I've
>> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I can do
>> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is not
>> that important.
>
> Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.  You
> can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to be
> designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
> command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a single
> list.

I define NEXT actions as a tag on some TODO item under the project
hierarchy.  I then pick NEXT actions off of the custom agenda view for
NEXT actions using agenda filtering to limit the total number of things
I'm looking at.

-Bernt

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

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4634 bytes --]

Thanks for the replies.

I can see the value of having project lists with its actions beneath (and
sub-projects), but I don't have the discipline or maybe not enough org
skills to use it efficiently.

Having one project list that *lists only projects* (outcomes that require
more than one action to be considered a reality) and another single stack of
Next Actions has its benefits. The first one, being a cleaner list and
simplicity.

In the process phase, you process your blob of "stuff", and when you get to
the point in the workflow where you have to decide if its a project or an
actual next action, then you can decide where to put it, *two lits to choose
from*.

The next actions can have the context tags, and the project list all have
the PROJECT tag. No more, no less.

Later on, in the planning phase, you can then generate more actions to crank
up in the list of actions.

So, you need to act on, just check the Next Actions list. Review the
projects lists whenever you feel to, to check for completed outcomes, need
to filter by context, use the agenda view. In the weekly review, check the
inbasket and someday/maybe, project lists and next actions, process,
organize, rise and repeat. Project lists and next actions lists refreshed
and ready to rock again. That's all.

As a side-benefit, having a cleaner text-file is good.

The other option, of having a Projects list, with projects then next actions
mixed up, has its benefits, since when using tagging properly you can
differentiate between Next Actions and Projects using org search features.
However, in the agenda view I won't have any clue of to which project the
TODO belongs, so, I lost the project information there, unless I turn follow
mode on or follow this item (<enter>, mouse-click), then I find that there
are too many items and hierarchies when I follow the items, it just gets too
cluttered for me, too confusing.

Also, one of the reasons I tried to simplify was that I was spending too
much time adjusting it and little time actually using it :S

I haven't stopped and I will keep studying better ways to do GTD and
automate more of my system, but this will be in the someday/maybe now.

I will create a section on Worg on different implementations of systems with
org based on the GTD model, then we could list the pros and cons, relate to
other productivity models and make a good menu to serve as reference for us
or as a great menu for new users.

Anyway, two different approaches that are both good, depends on how your
mind works and your level of knowledge of GTD/org.







On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> wrote:

> Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> >> Hello list,
> >>
> >> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
> >> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
> >> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you:
> For
> >> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
> >> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
> >>
> >> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item
> under
> >> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a
> mix
> >> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there
> with
> >> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it
> was
> >> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
> >> even though I was getting lost.
> >>
> >> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to
> try
> >> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next
> actions
> >> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects.
> I've
> >> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I
> can do
> >> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is
> not
> >> that important.
> >
> > Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.
>  You
> > can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to
> be
> > designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
> > command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a
> single
> > list.
>
> I define NEXT actions as a tag on some TODO item under the project
> hierarchy.  I then pick NEXT actions off of the custom agenda view for
> NEXT actions using agenda filtering to limit the total number of things
> I'm looking at.
>
> -Bernt
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5463 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

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

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7030 bytes --]

Another thing I'd like to add:

The only one next actions lists put the importance on actions, not on
projects. And isn't that what GTD is essentially about? Managing actions?

As long as you are acting up on your actions, that's fine, the need to check
the projects is not that frequent, in my opinion.

When you have actions below projects, you end up by thinking too much if the
action really fits on this project or if it belongs to a different
project/outcome. At least that's what happens to me. When I have a single
project list, I feel more freedom to just list outcomes and related actions
in the actions lists, then I check the project lists and eventually find out
that some outcomes have been reached. Good!

For example, when I get to the point that I decided that there is a next
action that results from a piece of data I'm processing, I might just add it
to the next actions lists, well written, or add it to its corresponding
project.

Of course, I could use remember and set it up to fill from the existing
project maybe (like, remember, tasks, type, choose the project from the
project list), but it is much more keystrokes than just saving it in the
Next Actions list. It's a more organic way to work, has less structure.

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?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <
celoserpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the replies.
>
> I can see the value of having project lists with its actions beneath (and
> sub-projects), but I don't have the discipline or maybe not enough org
> skills to use it efficiently.
>
> Having one project list that *lists only projects* (outcomes that require
> more than one action to be considered a reality) and another single stack of
> Next Actions has its benefits. The first one, being a cleaner list and
> simplicity.
>
> In the process phase, you process your blob of "stuff", and when you get to
> the point in the workflow where you have to decide if its a project or an
> actual next action, then you can decide where to put it, *two lits to choose
> from*.
>
> The next actions can have the context tags, and the project list all have
> the PROJECT tag. No more, no less.
>
> Later on, in the planning phase, you can then generate more actions to
> crank up in the list of actions.
>
> So, you need to act on, just check the Next Actions list. Review the
> projects lists whenever you feel to, to check for completed outcomes, need
> to filter by context, use the agenda view. In the weekly review, check the
> inbasket and someday/maybe, project lists and next actions, process,
> organize, rise and repeat. Project lists and next actions lists refreshed
> and ready to rock again. That's all.
>
> As a side-benefit, having a cleaner text-file is good.
>
> The other option, of having a Projects list, with projects then next
> actions mixed up, has its benefits, since when using tagging properly you
> can differentiate between Next Actions and Projects using org search
> features. However, in the agenda view I won't have any clue of to which
> project the TODO belongs, so, I lost the project information there, unless I
> turn follow mode on or follow this item (<enter>, mouse-click), then I find
> that there are too many items and hierarchies when I follow the items, it
> just gets too cluttered for me, too confusing.
>
> Also, one of the reasons I tried to simplify was that I was spending too
> much time adjusting it and little time actually using it :S
>
> I haven't stopped and I will keep studying better ways to do GTD and
> automate more of my system, but this will be in the someday/maybe now.
>
> I will create a section on Worg on different implementations of systems
> with org based on the GTD model, then we could list the pros and cons,
> relate to other productivity models and make a good menu to serve as
> reference for us or as a great menu for new users.
>
> Anyway, two different approaches that are both good, depends on how your
> mind works and your level of knowledge of GTD/org.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> wrote:
>
>> Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>> >> Hello list,
>> >>
>> >> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
>> >> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all
>> about
>> >> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from
>> you: For
>> >> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
>> >> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
>> >>
>> >> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item
>> under
>> >> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and
>> a mix
>> >> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there
>> with
>> >> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it
>> was
>> >> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more
>> "organized",
>> >> even though I was getting lost.
>> >>
>> >> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided
>> to try
>> >> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next
>> actions
>> >> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects.
>> I've
>> >> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I
>> can do
>> >> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is
>> not
>> >> that important.
>> >
>> > Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.
>>  You
>> > can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to
>> be
>> > designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
>> > command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a
>> single
>> > list.
>>
>> I define NEXT actions as a tag on some TODO item under the project
>> hierarchy.  I then pick NEXT actions off of the custom agenda view for
>> NEXT actions using agenda filtering to limit the total number of things
>> I'm looking at.
>>
>> -Bernt
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8137 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

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

[Matt Lundin]

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! :)

- Matt

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

[Bernt Hansen]

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

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

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- 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

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

[Bernt Hansen]

Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com> writes:

> 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?

I'd just make a task

,----[ todo.org ]
| * Miscellaneous
| ** Go Shopping and buy stuff                                      :INTOWN:
|   - [ ] Chocolate
`----

and accumulate items in the list until there is enough to warrant a trip
to the store.

I normally have separate tasks (Buy This, and Buy That) which I convert
to a list later as above.  It's faster to record the buy something task
in remember than to find the Go Shopping task when I remember something
I need to add to the list.  Later when I have time I can consolidate the
separate tasks into the shopping list, print it out and check off the
boxes with a pen when I'm actually in town.

If I'm going to town for something I look at my agenda list for :INTOWN:
tags and deal with whatever I can in a single trip.

-Bernt