Re: [O] Bernt Hansen's

[rene]

Sebastien Vauban <address@hidden> writes:

> rene wrote:
> 
> > I find his code pretty close to what GTD should look like.  There are a few
> > things though that could be twicked a bit in order to comply with David
> > Allen's new book on Getting Things Done.
> 
> Can you detail them, for our own information, please?

Here are a few thoughts.  Feel free to provide feedback and enhancements.

Associating what GTD calls "Areas of Responsibility" to orgmode
categories is great.  But launching a search for these categories (areas of
responsibility) has to be hardcoded in everyone's config file.  It
would be great if this could work like for Tags (C-a a M) or Todo keywords
(C-a a T).

Why not have a "C-a a R" which would prompt us for our own various
Areas of Responsibility.

Of course there is an org-agenda-filter-by-category function but this
function should then work more as org-agenda-filter-by-tag where the
category would either be selected with a fast selection letter or when
you hit the TAB key you're being prompted for a list of possible
categories.

Within GTD, the way you are to choose which task to perform never
relies on a preset priority level but on three limiting criteria,
namely

 - your context: What can I do where I am?
 - your time available: How much time do I have?
 - your energy: How much energy do I have

It's easy to implement your context as Tags: @home, @computer,
@office, @internet, @errands, etc.  It's therefore easy to
extract/filter tasks pertaining to a particular context using "C-a a M".

I find the org-effort-property misleading.  It looks like you're
talking about the energy criteria but in fact this deals with the
estimated time duration of a task.  Could one straighten this up?

The estimated "task-duration" could then replace the misleading
"org-effort" property.

The "energy" level should work as the org-priority.  "A" could mean
the task will require from me a high level of priority, whereas "C"
could mean a low level of priority.

In David Allen's new book, which should be available early 2015, the
three basic steps for the GTD method are: Capture, Clarify and
Organize.  In terms of vocabulary, he's not talking about a "task to
refile" but rather an "action to clarify and organize", which in orgmode
would consist in assigning the right: context (tag), duration, energy,
project, where a project would pertain to a area of responsibility
(category).

For me this notion of projects (and sub-projects, sub-sub-projects, etc.) in
org-mode is not that easy to deal with.  Maybe I need to investigate
things a bit more.  Any idea would be welcome.

Since the Weekly Review is such a key part in the GTD methodology,
I don't think there's any real need to differentiate between active vs stuck
projects.  Every 7 to 10 days, you will go over your projects and thus
identify the ones that need a next action to be defined.  The ones
that are considered as DONE, if all their sub-actions and sub projects
are themselves done or canceled.

--
rene