Is Waiting For proactive category?

[Borisoff]

It seems that @Waiting for category is more reactive. Maybe it's more acurate to put all the @Waiting for into @Call category. I.e. I'm waiting for a reply from customer on my proposal. I can put it in @Waiting for and wait, wait, wait... but I can put it in @Call like "CUSTOMER ABC: remind that I'm waiting for reply". What Alain says about that?

[pageta]

It may seem reactive by nature, but the purpose is to use it to be proactive. If you know you are waiting for X to happen, you will be reminded of it, and if it hasn't happened, you can follow through before it becomes a crisis.

[Borisoff]

If that's the same then maybe I can use only @Calls except of @Waiting For? Or David will not forgive me?

[Max]

I don't have a long list of waiting fors nor a long is of call to make. So I have combined both of those in @agendas. I group items by person. So when I call Bill, I see that I need to talk to him re: project X and that I am waiting for item Y.

This work for me but as with all things GTD, YMMV.

[Borisoff]

Let's go further in my hereticizm I went further and refused to use @Agendas. I will explain in more details. We need to put any ideas we need to discuss with someone someday to @Agendas. If so then why not to put it into @Calls category? Let say you wanna discuss "the point" then just put in into Call Jim to discuss "the point" or Call Jim to meet for discussion of "the point". Any ideas why I should use @Agendas?

I think it's easy to use proactive @Calls category instead of @Waiting (they will give me someday...maybe...) and @Agendas (they will come to me someday...maybe...) reactive categories

[Max]

I do not use @Calls for this because in my life I am more likely to be talking face to face or emailing.

They are just labels for categories of next actions. Name the categories whatever you like. The main thing is to be sure you are grouping your next actions together in a way that works for you.

[Tom from Vancouver USA]

I still have an @waiting for list, but I too find it somewhat passive. What I've begun experimenting with is using the ~ symbol (i.e, the tilde for those of you who speak spanish) in front of items I am now waiting for. For example, "send Jim my April plans and itinerary" was an action in @emails. But then once I did it but needed to pay attention to the fact that I was waiting for a reply from Jim in order to finalize my plans, I put the ~ at the front of the description of that task. So as I scan my lists of emails, the ones that begin with ~ are in someone else's court at the moment. I can still read them and decide whether I should nudge them a bit, but it's not as much a required NA like the rest of the ones on my list. Since I use Outlook, the other option would be to quickly ALT-G to change the item from the @emails to @waiting category. But if I am going to want to follow up it will likely be in that same context (i.e, emails) then why not leave it in that list, modified by the ~ ?

Not sure if this is inefficient or GTD heresy in others' opinion, but it seems to help.

[webagogue]

"Waiting For" makes most sense in the context of performing a weekly review (or somewhat regular review) where you take a look at everything you have, check off what you've done, and decide what to do next. It is during this time that you would look at your WF list and decide if you needed to get any of that stuff taken care of in the span of time before your next Weekly Review. Anything that had to happen between this and the next review should be taken off your WF list and given a context like @Phone, etc. If it was critical that it happen by a certain date then you might make an all day activity on your calendar to contact that person. Need it by a certain time? Make an appointment to contact that person at or by that time. But, anything that could wait for you to look at in the next weekly review could be left on your WF list.

The WF is not an action... it is a context like "@Phone" "@Computer." You shouldn't be looking at this list at all except at your weekly review OR if you decide during the week that you might want to clear up some stuff because you have some free time.

At least that's how I understand it.

[Borisoff]

"Waiting For" makes most sense in the context of performing a weekly review (or somewhat regular review) where you take a look at everything you have, check off what you've done, and decide what to do next. It is during this time that you would look at your WF list and decide if you needed to get any of that stuff taken care of in the span of time before your next Weekly Review. Anything that had to happen between this and the next review should be taken off your WF list and given a context like @Phone, etc. If it was critical that it happen by a certain date then you might make an all day activity on your calendar to contact that person. Need it by a certain time? Make an appointment to contact that person at or by that time. But, anything that could wait for you to look at in the next weekly review could be left on your WF list

In my world of Sales the customer loves to get everything in a timely manner and even if I'm waiting for some input from him he Loves to get reminders (some kind of attention) sooner then my Weekly Reviews periods It means no way for me to use Waiting For?

[webagogue]

In my world of Sales the customer loves to get everything in a timely manner and even if I'm waiting for some input from him he Loves to get reminders (some kind of attention) sooner then my Weekly Reviews periods It means no way for me to use Waiting For?

The purpose of your contact during the week has nothing to do with the particular item for which you are waiting. As you state, it is because your customer likes to get attention. In this case, yes, @WF is the wrong context.

If you use @WF like you are saying then you are not allowing yourself any breathing room for anything. If you have a tickler file, do you go though all of the days and months once or twice a week because there is something in the future that you might want to act on? Not likely. And if you did, we'd probably tell you to seek some kind of professional help for OCD .

An @Follow Up category makes more sense for your scenario (or whatever you want to call it).