Naming Projects

Michael Ramone

Registered
I express items on my lists in very specific ways. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I've described my conventions below.

Next Actions
I express next actions as verbs in the imperative mood. For example,

Cover monitor light with black tape
Look up the requirements for playing Half Life: Alyx
Resolve morning routine


If a next action involves more than one physical action, but is more conveniently expressed as a single next action, I link the sequence of actions as if it were a sentence. For example,

Find a place for house key and put it there

Waiting For
I express Waiting For items as

Delegatee | Project or next action, begun with an imperative verb—Unpadded initiation month/Unpadded initiation date

For example,

Mark | Respond re: schedules—7/31
Postal Service | Deliver pool cleaner—6/15
Morgan | File tax forms for the company—2/1


Someday/Maybe
I express Someday/Maybe items as verbs in the imperative mood as is standard. For example,

Go to India
Understand String Theory
Learn to make animated bar graphs


Reference
I express items on my reference lists as the lists demand. For example, on my "Media" list, I never start entries with verbs. Instead of writing

Watch Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
(the best MI movie, by the way)

I write

Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol

since the name of the list indicates that it contains consumable media.

Projects?
I recently started trying to express projects as descriptions of my desired outcomes. For example,

Medicine drawer is stocked with bandaids

But I suppose that I could also write the following while not violating this convention:

Medicine drawer has been stocked with bandaids

Or I could write

Medicine drawer was stocked with bandaids

since that is equivalent—it still represents what will be true when the project is completed.

And if you were following the convention from the 2015 revision of Getting Things Done, you would likely write

Stock medicine drawer with bandaids

since David Allen starts projects on the partial projects list with imperative verbs.

Do any of you think that the tense of the verb—present tense "am"/"is"/"are", past perfect tense "have been"/"has been," simple past tense "was"/"were"—matters? "What's the desired outcome?" is too ambiguous to imply a certain tense. To make matters worse, "What's the desired outcome?" often produces project names different from those that "What will be true?" produces. Which do I use?

It may be too minor a detail to care for, but having specific naming conventions for entries of each category helps reinforce the very hard edges of my system.
 

John Forrister

GTD Connect
Staff member
Thanks for posting those examples, Michael.

Regarding project verbs, I've heard David and longtime GTD coaches say that it's fine to phrase them in present or past tense. If I were prone to puns, I would say try it both ways and see which tense makes you less tense about the project.

Back to serious -- you've brought up a good topic. The language we use for items on our lists is important to whether the lists attract or repel us.
 

TesTeq

Registered
Watch Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
(the best MI movie, by the way)
Really? Can you believe that a woman can catch by a leg a man who is catching by a leg Tom Cruise who is swinging on the the fire hose and then flying to the Burj Khalifa window at ~1500 ft above the ground? ;)

Projects?
I recently started trying to express projects as descriptions of my desired outcomes. For example,

Medicine drawer is stocked with bandaids

But I suppose that I could also write the following while not violating this convention:

Medicine drawer has been stocked with bandaids

Or I could write

Medicine drawer was stocked with bandaids

since that is equivalent—it still represents what will be true when the project is completed.
Why not get rid of these redundant verbs and just write down the desired state?
Medicine drawer stocked with bandaids
The Project's job is to change the current state of reality into the desired state!
 

Michael Ramone

Registered
Really? Can you believe that a woman can catch by a leg a man who is catching by a leg Tom Cruise who is swinging on the the fire hose and then flying to the Burj Khalifa window at ~1500 ft above the ground?
Of course it's possible—it really happened! I saw the movie myself! ;)

Why not get rid of these redundant verbs and just write down the desired state?
Medicine drawer stocked with bandaids
The Project's job is to change the current state of reality into the desired state!
I tried that for a day. It seemed fine. The point of having true or false project names was that I could judge the projects' completion with no brainpower: all of the thinking would be completed prior to judgement.

The issue arises when "What is the desired outcome?" produces "I go to India," while "What will be true?" produces "I have gone to India." Seemingly irrelevant, I know, but minor differences like those bother the hell out of me.

Regarding project verbs, I've heard David and longtime GTD coaches say that it's fine to phrase them in present or past tense.
I created a hierarchy—a checklist, anyone?—that guides me through the project names that I might create when asking "What will be true?"

1. I go to India
2. I have gone to India
3. I went to India

The rules are 1) that 2 and 3 are always equal, and 2) that if 1 will not be continuously true (i.e., I won't be continuously going to India because of this project's completion; that is not the effect that it will have on the world), it must be demoted to 2. Let me give an example—this is far simpler than I make it out to be.

Let's use the example of a medicine drawer needing to be stocked with bandaids. I ask myself, "What will be true [when this project is completed]?" What immediately floats to mind is "Medicine drawer is stocked with bandaids." I then ask myself, "Will this be continuously true?" In other words, "Will the medicine drawer be stocked with bandaids for at least a little while?" The answer is yes, which indicates that I must stay with that wording. and that I should not change "is" to "has been.".

Now let's use a different example, that of a pool needing to be cleaned. I could, for the sake of my sanity, phrase this passively—i.e., "Pool is clean[ed]"—but to prove that this hierarchy works, I will ensure that whatever sentence answers the question "What will be true?" is active.

I ask myself (after other clarification questions), "What will be true?" Immediately, "Pool service has cleaned my pool" comes to mind. Now I want to ensure that I cannot phrase this with the present tense. I ask myself, "Will the pool service be cleaning my pool nonstop?" The answer is no, which indicates that I cannot name the project "Pool service cleans my pool," as that will never be true; instead, I must name it "Pool service has cleaned my pool," as that is a step below in the hierarchy.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
May I suggest the Latin passive periphrastic construction. In its simplest form, it expresses something that must be done or ought to be done without specifying who is to do it. Thus Carthago delenda est, or Carthage must be destroyed. This famous phrase of Cato’s, for all it’s power, nevertheless carries with it an air of plausible deniability. Thus “The trash ought to be taken out Thursday night” or “The weekly review should be done on Saturday” have the advantage of deniability of responsibility In the event things don’t get done. You never said you would do it.
 

Longstreet

Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
May I suggest the Latin passive periphrastic construction. In its simplest form, it expresses something that must be done or ought to be done without specifying who is to do it. Thus Carthago delenda est, or Carthage must be destroyed. This famous phrase of Cato’s, for all it’s power, nevertheless carries with it an air of plausible deniability. Thus “The trash ought to be taken out Thursday night” or “The weekly review should be done on Saturday” have the advantage of deniability of responsibility In the event things don’t get done. You never said you would do it.
You are so good, my dear colleague!
 

Inhuman Artist

Registered
I like the idea of a project stated as it's desired outcome. Leave the verbs for next actions. Differentiates nicely between a Next action and a project. I think I'll adopt this idea.
 

Inhuman Artist

Registered
Of course it's possible—it really happened! I saw the movie myself! ;)


I tried that for a day. It seemed fine. The point of having true or false project names was that I could judge the projects' completion with no brainpower: all of the thinking would be completed prior to judgement.

The issue arises when "What is the desired outcome?" produces "I go to India," while "What will be true?" produces "I have gone to India." Seemingly irrelevant, I know, but minor differences like those bother the hell out of me.


I created a hierarchy—a checklist, anyone?—that guides me through the project names that I might create when asking "What will be true?"

1. I go to India
2. I have gone to India
3. I went to India

The rules are 1) that 2 and 3 are always equal, and 2) that if 1 will not be continuously true (i.e., I won't be continuously going to India because of this project's completion; that is not the effect that it will have on the world), it must be demoted to 2. Let me give an example—this is far simpler than I make it out to be.

Let's use the example of a medicine drawer needing to be stocked with bandaids. I ask myself, "What will be true [when this project is completed]?" What immediately floats to mind is "Medicine drawer is stocked with bandaids." I then ask myself, "Will this be continuously true?" In other words, "Will the medicine drawer be stocked with bandaids for at least a little while?" The answer is yes, which indicates that I must stay with that wording. and that I should not change "is" to "has been.".

Now let's use a different example, that of a pool needing to be cleaned. I could, for the sake of my sanity, phrase this passively—i.e., "Pool is clean[ed]"—but to prove that this hierarchy works, I will ensure that whatever sentence answers the question "What will be true?" is active.

I ask myself (after other clarification questions), "What will be true?" Immediately, "Pool service has cleaned my pool" comes to mind. Now I want to ensure that I cannot phrase this with the present tense. I ask myself, "Will the pool service be cleaning my pool nonstop?" The answer is no, which indicates that I cannot name the project "Pool service cleans my pool," as that will never be true; instead, I must name it "Pool service has cleaned my pool," as that is a step below in the hierarchy.
Like the way you do this.
 

gtdstudente

Registered
Looks good to me! I also personally prefer starting projects with the noun, as you're doing, given that the noun usually makes the project more identifiable at a glance when looking down the list or alphabetising it.

e.g.

Website launched

rather than

Launch website.
All good, however regarding productive "Linguis-Logic" this approach seems to have the least "intellectual Overhead" for little ol' me and helps to check Perfectionism. "Website launched" vs. if/when: Launch website . . . never good enough . . . i.e., never Launched?
 
Top