[blewis]

Originally Posted by dconjar

It's my understanding that the ordering reflects the sequence, not the priority. If a task is higher than another task within a project, it will be completed before the next task begins. It is not necessarily more or less important than the next task.

But if the actions are really sequential, it doesn't matter if you've encoded that Action 1 has less priority than Action 2 - you still have to do Action 1 first. The sequence is a description of how a projects "gets done".

Obviously it's very important that I "Deliver Budget for next Meeting". But to do that, isn't it even more important that I collect the data first to make that budget - regardless of how I hand code the priority in my lists? Should I adjust the priorities of my Actions based on what is currently in my list of Actions for that Project?

Are you suggesting it's important to be able to set priorities on a Project level? Are you suggesting it's important to set priorities on parallel Actions?

I supposed I'm saying when I put Actions in a sequential order, I'm both reflecting the sequence and the priority. I'm saying "I can't do B until I finish A. In terms of completing this Project, A must be a higher priority to me than B because I have to finish A to get to B."

If that dependency doesn't exist, I usually use Parallel Actions and set the Next Action (or most important Action) at the top of the list.

So, when I do my weekly reviews, I am making priority calls and those priority calls are reflected in the ordering of my lists.

In my life, and I'm speaking for me, there are too many fires to fight to hardcode a priority on a given Project.