Quote:
|
Originally Posted by markbrown00
couldn't you just make the last action of the task group something like: "verify that MacBook Pro is adequately set up"?
I really feel constrained by the current behaviour. It degrades the trustability of my system in a different way: tasks waiting for a task group to be completed are hidden until my weekly review. Skipping would be ok; autocompletion (perhaps with a preference to turn it off) would be the most intuitive.
|
I'm in complete agreement with this.
It seems like some alpha testers can't get comfortable with the neither-fish-nor-fowl nature of these "action groups" (and thus clamor for them to behave like subprojects, indistinguishable from projects except for their position in the hierarchy).
But I actually really appreciate this new invention. It seems to me - dare I say it - like an improvement on David Allen's system. As I understand him, Allen talks about projects as multi-step objectives that require planning and "staking." He describes some good methods for visualizing the end result, brainstorming, etc. to flesh out that planning. But he also states that any objective that requires more than one step is perforce a project. This is what I've struggled with in implementing GTD in the past: is
- look up movie showtimes @web
- call Mario re: movie tomorrow? @calls
really a project? I think it makes sense to call it something else, because it doesn't require any nontrivial visualizing of a successful outcome, brainstorming around how to get there, etc. It's just a group of actions - an action group!
By definition and in my practice, these action groups are complete when their component actions are complete. Assumption of the necessity of a review of their doneness seems like overkill to me. I'm glad to hear from Omni that the plan is to stick with action groups and to fix the problem of them holding up projects.