tim99 said:
I disagree. (grin) @WF can be used anyway anyone wants to. Yes, a strict definition of that word implies inaction, but in my world, everything that I am waiting for I have to followup on, and those items are different than some followup items.
If you are using it that way then I think you are missing the point of @WF.
@WF is a stake in the ground - a time out until the next review, most likely. It gets things out of your NA view and allows you to focus on those things over which you have immediate control. Or maybe a better way to say it is that @WF is a way for you to allow yourself to forget about something while someone else takes care of it.
If the person associated with the @WF does get back to you by the date promised, then you have to do nothing. If this person is a slacker and won't get back to you, then yes, you will need to follow up with them. Your @WF then becomes an NA in the @Phone or @Email (or something else appropriate) context list and loses the @WF label.
If you subscribe to the idea of "the way anyone wants to" then what is the point of discussion on this board, or heck, even reading David's book? I'm not trying to get into a right/wrong argument, but I am suggesting that some ways of using these tools are more effective than others.
tim99 said:
So, there are two different types of items. @waiting and @followup. That does not mean that I can not make a follow up call on an @waiting item.
I never suggested that you could not or should not "follow up" on an @WF.. quite the opposite, in fact. But if you are using @WF and @Follow Up interchangably, then, again, I think you are missing the point of @WF.