OmniFocus: When the Next Action is a meeting

I deal with Waiting Fors in a way that is somewhere in between bcmyers's and oogie's approaches:

I open my Waiting For list every day, sometimes more than once per day. I use no timer (tickler) for this as I do it as a part of my routine morning review. I then primarily check items marked with a red or blue line on the left, but I usually leave those with a turquoise line for the weekly review. The meaning I have defined for the colors are:
- turquoise: check at least once per week
- blue: check at least once per day
- red: check as often as possible

I sometimes flag (star) items if I really need to keep an eye out for them throughout the day, e.g. an urgent courier delivery. The flagging makes these items appear on my Today shortlist.

I use the same color coding for my Next actions. And the same color coding approach but with a slower review frequency for my Maybes.
 
Great question, I use OmniFocus too.

In these instances I lean on David's question, "What will get this off your mind?". With a next action that's a meeting I'll usually let the calendar event be enough and in OF leave a project with no next action (call the cops!). Then after the meeting I'll make sure to process my meeting notes and decide what's next. At the very worst I'll catch it during my weekly review. Occasionally that might not be enough and I'll add a waiting for item - e.g. Meeting outcome re: XYZ project - MM/DD (date).

I don't think it has to be more than that but if so then write those things down and see if there's more to this "thing". I find myself doing that a lot as things morph and change.
 
TesTeq said:
Time blocking. I cannot stand the "floating" X-minute/hour Next Actions. If I want to do something for one hour I schedule it. When I was writing my book I was blocking 4 hours each day.
Click to expand...

I don't see any difference at all between "Spend one hour doing X" and "Spend 8-9am doing X." The objections that you apply to the first, seem to me to apply precisely the same way to the second.
 
TesTeq said:
Because I'm The Intellectual Provocateur.
I believe that my strong opinions give others some food for thought.
But I will not invade your house or workplace if you use something that does not work for me. ;-)
Click to expand...
Indeed, Mr. Friedman, they do. And sometimes my workplace needs exactly that kind of intellectual provocation/swift kick in the butt. :)
 
Gardener said:
I don't see any difference at all between "Spend one hour doing X" and "Spend 8-9am doing X." The objections that you apply to the first, seem to me to apply precisely the same way to the second.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Probably it's my incurable personal preference that I need to schedule each time-defined effort.

For example I never put "Spend one hour mowing the lawn" on my @garden list.

I put "Mow the lawn in the backyard" and expect to work until the lawn in the backyard is mowed.

Or alternatively I schedule "Mowing the lawn" @17:00-18:00 and work until 18:00. In this case I don't care if I mow just a part of the lawn in the backyard or the whole lawn in the backyard and a part of the lawn in the front.
 
TesTeq said:
Interesting. Probably it's my incurable personal preference that I need to schedule each time-defined effort.

For example I never put "Spend one hour mowing the lawn" on my @garden list.

I put "Mow the lawn in the backyard" and expect to work until the lawn in the backyard is mowed.

Or alternatively I schedule "Mowing the lawn" @17:00-18:00 and work until 18:00. In this case I don't care if I mow just a part of the lawn in the backyard or the whole lawn in the backyard and a part of the lawn in the front.
Click to expand...

See, I'm not seeing any difference at all between "Spend one hour mowing the lawn" and "Mowing the lawn" @17:00-18:00. I accept that you perceive a difference, but I can't see it.
 
All of my colleagues who post here are quite wise and thoughtful. Everyone. I was just expressing appreciation for TesTeq for his particular insights is all.
 
Longstreet said:
Oh my....sorry to leave you out of acknowledging wisdom, @bcmeyers. LOL.
Click to expand...

I wasn't soliciting compliments; my irritation was born of a concern that the overall argumentative tone discussions in these forums frequently take may be discouraging people who are less confrontational from sharing equally valid points of view. It certainly hasn't dissuaded me, but I'm a salesperson and have developed pretty thick skin.

Unfortunately, betraying my irritation was probably unhelpful. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
 
It was my fault, but I did not mean it to be argumentative at all. But I sincerely apologize regardless.
 
Longstreet said:
It was my fault, but I did not mean it to be argumentative at all. But I sincerely apologize regardless.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but this one was my bad. I hope everyone can accept my apologies, and I'll try to stay out of the way of the discussion at hand.
 
Longstreet said:
Oh my....sorry to leave you out of acknowledging wisdom, @bcmeyers. LOL.
Click to expand...
​
Longstreet said:
All of my colleagues who post here are quite wise and thoughtful. Everyone. I was just expressing appreciation for TesTeq for his particular insights is all.
Click to expand...
​
bcmyers2112 said:
Unfortunately, betraying my irritation was probably unhelpful. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Click to expand...
bcmyers2112 said:
Thanks, but this one was my bad. I hope everyone can accept my apologies, and I'll try to stay out of the way of the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

You, two... all is forgiven! Go share a beer and meet us back here when you're done! :) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top