Bad GTD. . . ?

[gtdstudente]

Would it be bad GTD to say all commitments are 'Completion Commitments' unless a particular commitment requires a Next Action prior to 'full-blown' completion?

Totally bad?

Different phrasing required

Thank you very much

Your most humble GTDer

 

[pgarth]

Skipping over word “bad”.

Two clarifying words come to mind - “role” and “agreement”.

I could say that each project/action can be associated with a prior structure of a role.

Roles have agreements.

Given that, what does completion look like in the moment or towards a desired outcome? Your agreement to the role decides that.

 

[gtdstudente]

Skipping over word “bad”.

Two clarifying words come to mind - “role” and “agreement”.

I could say that each project/action can be associated with a prior structure of a role.

Roles have agreements.

Given that, what does completion look like in the moment or towards a desired outcome? Your agreement to the role decides that.

@pgarth

Agree . . . meanwhile the point attempting to express is that plowing through Project to completion can also be the completion 'default' vs. 'detouring' through Next Actions which can mean Next Actions becomes the 'back-up' plan when 'plowing through' Project(s) to completion is unfeasible. . . .

Hopefully make some sense