Again, I babble on at length:
Your structure sounds much more usable now. But I think that in worrying about the overlaps you may be over-worried about what I'd call the taxonomy. The primary purpose of all of these groups is not to label your work and goals, but to do them. If all of your activities could be divided into two manageable chunks of Work and Not-Work, that would, IMO, be enough high-level folder division until one of those got so big that it needed dividing again. If a big chunk of the Not Work actions/projects were about gardening, then I see nothing wrong with Work, Gardening, and Other-Not-Work. And so on.
None of this should be taken as my advising against creating projects - I think that anything that can't be done in one obvious straightforward action is a project. I create projects at the drop of a hat (though I resist making purely theoretical someday projects, instead adding a one-line "project seed" entry to a list), but it takes a lot to make me create a folder.
The high-level goals don't have to affect the folder structure at all - they can be elsewhere, such as in a list. But IMO the perspectives should affect the structure. If, say, you want your C# actions to show up when you're looking at your available actions at work, versus showing up when you look at them at home, versus showing up both times, that's a preference that will probably need to be reflected in your folders.
Hmm. This brings me to one of those thoughts that's so entrenched in my system that it doesn't occur to me to say it: I rarely look in my project folders for actions to do. I look at them during my weekly review, but it's my context-side-based perspectives' jobs to actually remind me of tasks on a day-to-day basis. If something is quite important, it's my system's job to make it float to the surface and show it to me, rather than my job to remember to go look for it. My job, in the moment, stops with choosing the right perspective to look at. My job in the weekly review is to make those perspectives do their job for the rest of the week.
So, that Hobby thing. You're not going to be graded on your taxonomy, so I don't see any reason not to put your Guitar projects in your Hobbies folder. Sure, you might lose interest; you might lose interest in any of your hobbies. Then you'll drop or delete the projects. That seems harmless.
I don't even have a "Hobbies" folder. I have a top-level "Assorted Projects" folder, and projects live there until there are too many and it's time to split some off to another folder, at which point I try to find some unifying theme for grouping some of them. So if one day I'd had six or ten projects for _different_ hobbies, I would have moved them to a Hobbies folder. But as it turned out, at one time I was focusing heavily on sewing and had a dozen sewing projects, and another time I was focusing heavily on gardening and had six or eight gardening projects. So my top-level folder list includes Assorted Projects, Sewing, and Gardening, among others.
Someday if I get too many top-level folders, I might create Hobbies to move Sewing, Gardening, and others one level down from the top level - though before I do that, I'll look at those folders to see if they could instead be ungrouped and dumped right back into Assorted Projects. If I have ten or fifteen hobbies, odds are that few of them have enough activity to justify the hobby having its own folder, at least by my standards for a folder.
My top level also includes a "Lists" folder, because some of my hobbies are largely tracked by lists. For example, I don't need a whole "Reading" folder just to store a "Stuff to read" SAL and a "Choose something from Stuff to Read" repeating action. So the stuff to read is in a SAL in Lists, and the "Choose something..." is up in Meta: Repeaters. (Meta being where I keep things that serve the whole system.)
I _could_ put the project "Develop a more reliable creative writing habit" in Home: Personal Enrichment: The Arts: Writing: Creative Writing, and "Find and master a good buttermilk fried chicken recipe" in Home: Cooking: Skill Development:Poultry (just to get extra extreme for the sake of demonstration), but I don't have any use for those intervening layers. So they're both in the top level "Assorted Projects" folder.
Again, I'm not saying that you would necessarily want to be this flat. I'm just giving examples of the structure being driven by use instead of taxonomy.
Tags for this Thread