Given the power of MLOs custom views I believe you could create your 
'report' as easily with contexts as with a custom field.  I use context in 
a vast number of ways including delegation.  

I have dedicated @name contexts for ppl I often either delegate too or have 
agendas with.  Examples are my assistant, biz partners, key supply 
partners, clients while they have projects active (some projects are 
multi-year, many are a couple months) and also my close/immediate family 
(my brother for example) with whom I often work with and/or for.  I also 
have one 'catch all' generic @agenda context for one-off agendas, etc. that 
don't merit their own context and I use my generic @waiting-for context for 
non-typical 'delegations', like asking my sister to help me with x for y's 
birthday party.  I don't often 'delegate' to my sister but occasionally, it 
happens.

It might sound like a lot but it's not as many as it sounds (there's about 
15 right now after 2 years, 3 of which have presently have tasks) and 
frankly, it's not really that high a maintenance.  
I only add an @name context to the system when it's really warranted and 
then I just include those in a 'meta' context I created (I use *Agendas) 
and then use the meta context's inclusion to avoid having to update various 
views that use itb.  With only some minor snags, so far so good.

If you use certain of those views often (ie a Delegated view), create a tab 
for it and lock it as default (tabs may be new for you, depending on how 
long you were away.)  
I lock all my key views that way and use it for delegation/agendas, 
tracking JIT inventory for projects (from order/backorder to delivery to 
jobsite,) to my daily errands, calls, Inbox and NAs.

Your request for a dedicated field isn't outlandish, but I think with just 
a wee bit of creative effort you'll find you don't actually *need* it.

hth.



On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 11:18:33 AM UTC-4, bs wrote:
>
> My interest is not nearly as elaborate as others are assuming. I'm not 
> looking for project management capability or any type of cross-user 
> interactivity. I'm really just looking for something as simple as a field 
> where I could enter the person (or persons) who are responsible for doing 
> something. Yes, I am aware of the workarounds that are listed here. Using a 
> context or including the name in the header is reasonable....but it's not 
> as elegant as having a dedicated field to assign ownership. With such a 
> field, I could more easily create reports, sort by owner, assign tasks, 
> etc. When I'm working on a project, I could see who all is doing things. 
> When I sit down with a person, I could easily see all the things that 
> person is responsible for doing.
>
> It's really a simple need and pretty core to any task manager. I've used 
> MLO for a very long time. This has just been a notable gap in my mind. With 
> all the latest efforts, I was hoping that gap would be closed. Alas.
> -bs
>
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 9:53:55 AM UTC-7, bs wrote:
>
>> I stopped using MLO a while back primarily because there was no elegant 
>> method for delegating tasks and managing others' work. As I browse the web 
>> site, it does not appear there has been a change to this functionality but 
>> I wanted to check. There are many things I very much like about MLO and had 
>> used it for many years. But I interact with too many people so I need this 
>> capability.
>>
>> Did I miss a delegate capability in the latest list of features?
>>
>> Thanks much,
>> -bs
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MyLifeOrganized" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/3b8151b4-81f0-4ee4-9cf2-a50ea3f9f8ff%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to