[anna]

Ah, I see. You want the leaf nodes to behave like actions do now, as far as your context lists are concerned, and the root nodes to behave like projects, even when the leaf and root are the same. That makes much more sense.

I'm with dhm in that I *like* being able to corral my single actions. Otherwise my project list would be terribly cluttered, and I would have to use fake projects to group things (which is maybe what the singleton lists are anyway, but the visual distinction helps me know they're fake and don't need planning).

If I am looking at my context lists and realize that something is a project, I really want a simple way to kick it back to the inbox so I can deal with it properly at an appropriate time (say, by removing its context?). But I don't have that yet. If I need to do something about it immediately, I can jump to planning mode. You're right that it's fairly painful. That's why I really want the "kick to inbox" functionality.

[pvonk]

I think a previous post had an interesting concept that would solve the top level mix of singletons and projects. Consider the following (singleton entries are designated by "s" and projects by "p":

blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (p)
blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (p)
blah, blah (p)
blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (p)

Assuming these are top levels entries in the Library, then the mix of singletons and projects might be problematic if there are a lot of them, even though a singleton and a project are abstractly the same - an endeavour that we need to accomplish.

However, to bring more organization to this plethora of endeavours, we can (as a previous poster has suggested) use folders to "wrap" things together even though these "things" are not part of one project. For example:

Folder - Work singletons
--blah, blah (s)
--blah, blah (s)
--blah, blah (s)
blah, blah (p)
blah, blah (p)
blah, blah (s)

We can then collapse the folder to hide the abundant set of singletons that we don't wish to view every time - when in planning mode. Of course we can use more folders to gather related projects. We could have multiple folders for multiple sets of singletons. Etc. One additional view in planning mode would be to hide all folders to get the "master" list of all projects and singletons.

This allows us to group singletons without having them belong to a projects (a kluge as it now stands).

Assuming you accept this proposal, then how do singletons and projects live together? Again, abstractly, a top level "thing", all by itself, is a singleton. If we add one action under it, this "thing" should immediately change to a project. If the former singleton was assigned a date or context, that would carry down as a default. If the singleton automatically becomes a project, then the context that was assigned to the singleton merely becomes a default for actions added to the project. Also, the new project has added properties assigned, such as its active status or the "parallel"-"sequential" property.

If a project has all its actions deleted, it then becomes a singleton, losing some properties but maintaining the original assigned properties, when it was a singleton.

In other words, when a new item is added in planning mode to the top level, its type is determined dynamically (initially a singleton action, but changing to a project when a sub action is added). We no longer have to choose between adding a project or an action, since a project is really an action that is later assigned subactions.

[dhm2006]

Originally Posted by jasong

What about putting those single actions into a folder?

If there is a way to put single actions in a folder without putting them in a project (or singleton bucket) first, I don't know how to do it. When I move a single action to a folder, it turns into a project. That means it loses the checkbox and it doesn't show up in context mode.

Originally Posted by jasong

What's the line between a single action and a project for you, and do single actions ever turn into projects?

Yes, sometimes I turn single actions turn into projects.

What's the line between the two? That gets a little fuzzy. To quote GTD, a project is something that requires more than one action to complete. A single action is a just that -- something that can be completed in one step. But, I don't always stick to that.

Sometimes, I list the next action for a project as a singleton without setting up a project. I described that here.

There are several threads on what is a project and what is a singleton. Here is what Ethan Schoonover had to say about "singleton projects".

I am trying to organize all of my "projects" as groups of actions that can be completed, but I am not there yet. I keep several different singleton buckets.

[moniot]

I echo the earlier suggestion that the ability to rename the "Library" ourselves would potentially address the initial focus of this thread. Then you could do fun things like name it the "Ken Case" or the "GTD-O'Matic 2000"

[Shanana]

To extend a little on the example a couple posts back, I would like to see the ability to do this

folder (area of focus/responsibility)
blah blah (s)
blah blah (p)
blah blah (s)
blah blah (p)
blah blah (p)

So this area of responsibility would have 3 projects and 2 independent next actions that stand alone but fall under this area of responsibility. This would allow me the most flexible yet, meaningful ability to use the focus function since I would be able to choose projects to focus on or whole areas of responsibility. OF won't be truly the ultimate GTD app for me unless it can do this with single action and projects and have them "live" at the same level so to speak and in harmony sorted into their respective areas of responsibility.

That said, OF is still functional for me the way it is but it would just be sooooo much better with the above functionality. Also, for those that wanted all the singletons to live together they could just make a default singleton folder that would act like the singleton bucket does now. To me, singletons are more like projects without multiple steps than they are like lonely orphaned bits of projects that need to be held by a special almost project like container. It is a small difference but pretty important to me in my conceptualization of GTD. Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Shanana

[jasong]

Pierre, Shanana, yes, I think you've both described what I'm looking for, and ways to resolve the "group your single actions together" requests others have noted.

Shanana, I couldn't agree more when you say that

singletons are more like projects without multiple steps than they are like lonely orphaned bits of projects that need to be held by a special almost project like container.

Not having one big list of "things i made an agreement to do", organized by related areas, completely messes with my Mind Like Water, because I have to think about where and how things are organized.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by moniot

I echo the earlier suggestion that the ability to rename the "Library" ourselves would potentially address the initial focus of this thread. Then you could do fun things like name it the "Ken Case" or the "GTD-O'Matic 2000"

This would be great, as I've recently decided I want my container to be called "Agreements" or "Outcomes".

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by dhm2006

If there is a way to put single actions in a folder without putting them in a project (or singleton bucket) first, I don't know how to do it. When I move a single action to a folder, it turns into a project. That means it loses the checkbox and it doesn't show up in context mode.

The proposal is for a new feature, so there is no way to do it now. Top-level actions, or actions in folders, would remain actions unless they were given child actions. Once they get a child, they become projects.

This is very interesting idea. It seems similar in spirit to actions within projects become action groups when they get children. On the one hand, that similarity should be helpful to users. On the other hand, we've argued a lot on the forums about action groups vs. subprojects. It seems like the same concerns might apply with this proposal.

[dhm2006]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

The proposal is for a new feature, so there is no way to do it now. Top-level actions, or actions in folders, would remain actions unless they were given child actions. Once they get a child, they become projects.

This is very interesting idea. It seems similar in spirit to actions within projects become action groups when they get children. On the one hand, that similarity should be helpful to users. On the other hand, we've argued a lot on the forums about action groups vs. subprojects. It seems like the same concerns might apply with this proposal.

Oh, I see what you mean. Then my answer to jasong is that if that feature were implemented, I *probably* wouldn't use it. I would give it a try, of course, but ultimately I think I would prefer to keep single actions on separate lists from projects (i.e., in singleton buckets) to reduce the visual clutter.

Having my list of singletons in the Projects/Library list really doesn't bother me because of the way I use folders. Some of my folders are overarching projects with subprojects inside: for example, "Purge File Cabinet" is a folder with specific projects for the different types of files and other *stuff* in that sinkhole.

Most of my folders, however, are areas of responsibility (or roles or goals or whatever terminology that applies to that type of organization), such as "Household."

I use several singleton lists there. One is "Purchases." In purchases, I have an action called "Grocery List" where I note items I need in the note field (not the routine items like milk and bread, but items I won't necessarily think of when I am at the grocery store). It is just a placeholder, not really an action, because I never mark it complete. I just delete the items I bought from the note.

Is that GTD? I think so. I need a way to get the items to be purchased at the grocery store off my mind until I am at the grocery store. Do I want the grocery list at the root level with my folders? No. Do I want it at the top level inside the Household folder? Not particularly.

Very few of my projects around the house are sequential, and for those that are, I usually just record the next action as a singleton rather than plan anything out. That means that the things I identify as *projects* are distinct.

[pjc]

Originally Posted by jasong

This would be great, as I've recently decided I want my container to be called "Agreements" or "Outcomes".

I was thinking, in GTD form, to call mine "Processed", as distinct from the "Inbox". (After all, the filter above this column still says "Active Projects".)

I suspect allowing people to name it will be the only way to make everyone happy... :)

And I'm with the crowd that doesn't see why there should be such a rigid distinction between action groups and projects, or projects and single tasks.