Giggling ... I suppose you are referring to my "parasequential" idea.
Originally Posted by bcmyers2112
You know, it is funny how difficult it can be to make oneself understood, and especially perhaps when we are trying to be smart and political about it. Let me tell you the full story, just as an anecdote, in case you are interested:
The thing that matters to me is not the automation. That hardly matters at all. Honestly.
What matters to me is that if I have a project with a whole bunch of tasks in it, then typically not all of them should be visible on the Next list (or on the Waiting For list or on any other list). The rest should be visible only within the project. Only those that are truly relevant/possible right now should be visible elsewhere. I know you agree. You have said so before. And this is GTD straight up.
Now, the funny thing (sad thing, really) is that none of the so-called GTD apps has any form of functionality whatsoever built in to specifically handle this in a smooth way (without using workarounds or compromises). They typically do not even recognize the underlying GTD principle.
Now, enter a "political" dimension that I have seen a number of times, and here is a recent example. I stumbled upon an old discussion in Doit's forum, where a rare few people had been demanding exactly this manual capability for years, and still are. And guess what. Not only was their idea not appreciated by their fellow users. The Doit team themselves had no clue what they were talking about, and said they have no such plans whatsoever. But at the very same time, other people in other threads on the Doit forum have requested automatic one-by-one progression "just like Omnifocus and Nirvana", in order to hide the not-yet-relevant tasks, and guess what: Their fellow users just love the idea, and the Doit team declared happily that they have something like that underway already and that they call it "task dependency".
So my dilemma was this. There seems to be very little recognition of the fundamentals of GTD projects (what goes on the Next list and what doesn't), but there seems to be quite a lot of enthusiasm for automating them and thereby hiding the "undesired" tasks. And automation certainly could solve my fundamental GTD problem, too, indirectly, if only it is done right. I cannot use Nirvana's, though, because it only promotes one a time and I cannot manually make additional tasks visible. I would hate to see even more developers going down exactly that too-narrow road (even though others are asking for it).
So I decided to promote the "parasequential" concept - sequential-automatic (just like Nirvana, and what people are asking for), but with a whole parallel bucket in front (not necessarily just one single task; which is what I and some others recognize that we need), and where you can move tasks as you wish between the two sections, and where new tasks land in the parallel section by default so as not to be inadvertently hidden from view. I quite like this concept even for my own use, but that's more of a lucky coincidence - it was more intended as a way to fuse a number of different user requirements into one single feature request (equally simple to use, I dare say, serves a wider variety of needs, and thereby also obviates the need for additional related features and requests later). But apparently I have come across to you as Mr. Automation, which is quite funny