Quote:
Originally Posted by whpalmer4
The primary functional distinction between a single action list and a parallel project is that which you propose to eliminate with this option.
|
I'm not sure I understand. My take is that a SAL is a list of thematically-related actions but for which there is never any completion (of the SAL title, e.g., "gardening"), whereas all projects have an ultimate, completable, goal. If that is more-or-less correct, then from a theoretical point of view, all available actions in a parallel project should be (potential) next actions, no? Otherwise, one is prioritizing, which is potentially against the grain of GTDness (yet I realize I'm arguing *for* that kind of thing, so my argument is definitely not backed by pure(?) GTD theory ;).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whpalmer4
Why not just change it to be a parallel project?
|
Because SALs have a meaning to me, distinct from projects (in the way I wrote above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whpalmer4
Do you always want to work in this fashion, or only occasionally? If that latter, why not just switch between parallel and SAL as needed?
|
I always want to work in that fashion. I have a large number of SALs, and I don't wish to change them to parallel projects just so that they will yield only one next action.
I do understand that there may be a slight distinction between a parallel project and it's manually-set next action, vs. a SAL and it's potential next action, but for me that distinction falls apart in my practical use. I see the value in manually setting the next action of some parallel projects, and also see no reason why I shouldn't be able to do the same for SALs; I could use that same sense of 'here is what would benefit me to do next in this SAL' by manually setting its next action.
And for those who prefer to see all available SALs as next actions, I'm fine with that, but would prefer an option (via a preference) for SALs to behave like parallel projects in this respect. Thanks for your input.
Bob