From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rene Subject: Re: Bernt Hansen's Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <87zjdzgvbm.fsf@gmail.com> <87wq91wyiq.fsf@pierrot.dokosmarshall.org> <861tox7xwe.fsf@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55924) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvO8U-0008IJ-Lu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvO8N-0004ov-5U for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:18 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:36969) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvO8M-0004oi-Ut for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:11 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XvO8G-00067y-1q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:23:04 +0100 Received: from proxy-master.esisar.grenoble-inp.fr ([195.220.37.18]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:23:04 +0100 Received: from jlr_0 by proxy-master.esisar.grenoble-inp.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:23:04 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Sebastien Vauban 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