On Saturday 05 January 2008 06:22:33 Mimi Yin wrote: > But, do these things need to happen in order? Should you only work on > these one at a time? Instead of creating 5 tasks and tracking them > all, why not just have a single event item that represents the > meeting and simply DO (on that meeting item) what needs to be done to > set up this meeting?
The problem, at least in GTD terms, is that it's hard to see at a glance what's the next thing you could work on right now, given your current location and amount of available time. You'll have to do a sequential scan of all your projects, reading through their list of to-do items and then deciding which one is next. I am not a strict GTD follower, and the system Andre and other described works well enough for me in Chandler: it's still one item per project, but the single next action is listed prominently at the top (or even as its description, although I prefer to keep that constant as the name of the project), and the item is assigned to the context where this action is doable. It's very similar to what you're describing here, except that it's easier to see what can be done next. > An alternate way to approach the workflow would be to create an item > in Chandler that *is* the project and then work directly in the item, > treating it as a (shared) workspace for that project. > > + Create an event: Next all-hands > + Put it on the calendar as an anytime event over the span of a week > while you narrow in on the date. > + When you've figured out a date, you define the event time. > + To help you figure out the date, you could email the event or share > it with key stakeholders and ask each person to list out times they > can't make it and any other constraints they have. > + To brainstorm re: agenda you can just jot down ideas right in the > Notes field of the agenda. Your brainstorm will slowly evolve into > the actual agenda you send out. > + To collect input from others, you can email or share it with key > stakeholders and ask them to add their own ideas to the list. > + To send the invitation, you address it and send it out via email. > + But even sending out the invitation isn't necessarily the last step > because you or others could think of more things to add to the agenda > and end up sending out a subsequent update to the invite. This is pretty neat description. Would this be an "ideal" Chandler workflow for collaboration? > The reason why we can offer this is because we're more than just a > simple list / outliner and because we have sharing and email. If > there's just a list, all you can do is list out the work you need to > do because there isn't really room to spread out and do your work. I don't think Chandler is an outliner at all right now, simple or otherwise. Davor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
