[Chris]

Ah, I see, interesting thread. The question is whether actions should be able to exist outside projects. That has some similarities with my complaints about how action groups work and why they aren't subprojects.

Although it's not clear why you would be able to put an action that existed outside of projects on "hold" when you couldn't do it to an action inside a project, or what that would mean. For example, would an action on hold show up as "remaining" in context mode or not? Would it only show up in context mode under "all" (which is gone now, I guess).

[jasong]

Here's an example. Let's say I was at a youth softball game one fine Sunday morning, and I thought "hey, it might be interesting to be a youth softball coach!" I capture that thought in my trusted system, "investigate youth league coaching". It's not a project (yet, anyway): it's just a single action I can do in 20 minutes of online surfing.

Somehow, that never happens. Maybe I saw a Law & Order episode where the coach gets killed for not playing some kid enough. Too much stress.

I can put a date on the action, maybe even several years in the future, but I want to mark it as "On Hold" because perhaps during my review, I will change my mind.

Or I want to mark it as "Dropped", 'cause I'm just not going to do it, but hey, I want to know what stuff I "dropped" in case I change my mind (again).

Since "investigate youth league coaching" isn't a project, I can't do any of this. Instead, I have to make it a project with no actions, and then put it On Hold.

I could get into the whole "making this single action a project" issue, but I won't bother. It appears to be a lost battle.

[Frosty Crunch]

I'll go back and read that cited thread again, but I think the problem I have with the current design is that, yes, my single actions _that_are_in_Miscellaneous_ are in fact projects with a single task, practically speaking. So the question is, do you insist on a design that would have people not use a Miscellaneous single-action group and instead set up a slew of one-task projects, or do you allow single actions, at least those in a Miscellaneous type list, to be put on hold.

The former seems like the result a computer programmer would come to, since it reflects the underlying data structure, but a bit of usability testing would reveal its flaws.

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by Frosty Crunch

The former seems like the result a computer programmer would come to, since it reflects the underlying data structure, but a bit of usability testing would reveal its flaws.

We understand the flaws, but the time it would take to completely rework the architecture to make single action projects into first-class projects is fundamental enough that it would delay the application by several months. (Right now, single actions are simply implemented as a special type of action, but you're asking that they turn into some special type of project—which is fine, but right now Context Mode only operates on actions, and what action would it operate on in that case? And how does it show up in the project list, etc.? Do we really want all those single actions to clutter up the project list? If so, why do they exist at all; why not just use projects in the first place? There are still lots of design questions to consider in addition to the implementation questions.)

We'll look at this again after we ship 1.0, but in the meantime you can put any action (from any list or any project) on hold indefinitely by setting its start date to the year 3000.

(After we ship 1.0, I'm also wondering if we should eliminate the "hold" state from projects altogether, since I consider it to be redundant with the "pending" state of a project with a distant future start date.)

[Ken Case]

Alternatively, I guess you could be asking for all actions to support the On Hold and Dropped states. I'm actually sympathetic to the idea of adding Dropped as a valid action state, though (as I mentioned above) I'm leaning towards thinking that On Hold is redundant (at least in the data model; the UI might still represent a distant future start date as On Hold).

[jasong]

"On hold == distant future start date" feels like a hack to achieve a goal not available in the design. It's like putting punctuation at the start of file names to alter the sorting because there's no way to manually adjust it.

Putting something "on hold", the physical action of making that decision, is important for me. It means I recognize I don't have a complete commitment to the outcome/project. It's not as bad as "dropped", where I am almost definitely not going to do it, or "deleted" where I just want it gone forever.

Postponing it, putting it into a pending state by giving it a date in the future feels like I'm cheating; I know I'm putting it "on hold" but I don't get the mental relieve of saying "not now".

[dhm2006]

Originally Posted by Maurice

You can set up two single-action-lists, one is active and one is on hold ("Miscellaneous" and "Miscellaneous on hold"). If you want to put a singleton-action on hold, just move it to the second folder.

Originally Posted by jasong

"On hold == distant future start date" feels like a hack to achieve a goal not available in the design. It's like putting punctuation at the start of file names to alter the sorting because there's no way to manually adjust it.

Putting something "on hold", the physical action of making that decision, is important for me. It means I recognize I don't have a complete commitment to the outcome/project. It's not as bad as "dropped", where I am almost definitely not going to do it, or "deleted" where I just want it gone forever.

Postponing it, putting it into a pending state by giving it a date in the future feels like I'm cheating; I know I'm putting it "on hold" but I don't get the mental relieve of saying "not now".

I like Maurice's idea. It achieves an on-hold status without using a future start date, and yet maintains the current structure of single actions in a single actions list.

[brianogilvie]

Originally Posted by dhm2006

I like Maurice's idea. It achieves an on-hold status without using a future start date, and yet maintains the current structure of single actions in a single actions list.

I agree. I also agree with jasong that "on hold" is conceptually different from "pending in the distant future." When I look at pending projects, I want to see projects that I have committed to starting at a specific date. I haven't made the same commitment to my On Hold projects (or, if I did, I've backed out of the commitment). The current structure suits me well.

[curt.clifton]

Count me as another "me too". Pending and On Hold are very different beasts. If something is pending, then I've already negotiated a commitment for it, with myself or with someone else. On Hold items are effectively Someday-Maybe items to me. Being able to show just On Hold projects lets me review those potential projects easily. If those projects became "Pending in the far far future", then I would need more headings when grouping by Start date. (I have pending projects with start dates multiple years out that are really pending. For example, organizing a party for my parents' 50th anniversary.)

[Frosty Crunch]

the time it would take to completely rework the architecture to make single action projects into first-class projects is fundamental enough that it would delay the application by several months

I understand--for goodness sake, don't delay the program. I love it, and these are just quibbles. My checkbook is waiting for the final release!