Why does "waiting for" require a contact?
I am an avid user of GTD. I am trying to move to Nirvana, and I need help to decide what to do with tasks where I am waiting for a return phone call.
I call/email a lot of people, and the idea of creating a contact for each one doesn't make sense.
Say I have a task " Talk to John". Then I call John and get his voicemail. I ask him to call me back. I want to look in one place for all the folks I am "Waiting For" a return call. The same would go with email. The easiest place for me to put these tasks is usually in the "waiting for" section, but in N2 279 you need to assign a contact to the task, so I then have to create a contact "John". Adding a contact for John would only make sense if I had a lot of things that relate to John.
What's the best way to handle these types of tasks?
2 Posted by Proximo on 14 Oct, 2011 03:14 AM
Why can't one task relate to John? If you are expecting a call from John, you will need John to call you in order to move the task forward. Why does John need to have lots of things that relate to him?
The best way to handle a task that requires someone else to take action, is for you to note that on the task. This is exactly what the Waiting for list is doing for you. You can't wait for someone to do something if you don't know who that is.
You can always remove John if you feel you won't be doing much else with him down the road. The clarity of the waiting for task has everything to do with the person you are waiting to take some kind of action. In this case it's John, so John should be the contact tied to that task.
Just my opinion of course. I assign anyone and everyone to a task I assigned to them or that requires action by them. This is the simplest and most clear way for me to know what this task requires in my weekly reviews.
3 Posted by brett on 14 Oct, 2011 05:25 AM
I agree with your logic. The problem is the workflow.
I often have 10-15 calls that are in the waiting state.
So to use "waiting for" I need to create 10-15 new names, add them to the task, and delete them when I complete the task.
It's far simpler to just create a task "tallk to John" and after I make the call it into the "waiting for" bucket.
Furthermore, it makes the filters and tag cloud less effective because they are clogged with a contact that only refers to one task.
I do see how several calls to one person would defintely warrant a contact tag, but I see more work for no return when the contact has a single instance
4 Posted by rfo on 14 Oct, 2011 12:11 PM
One idea - Create one contact called "Someone" or some other general word. Use specific names for recurring people and use the generic for less frequently used and put the person's name in the task.
Support Staff 5 Posted by David McLaughlin on 14 Oct, 2011 12:50 PM
I don't recall which release it was created (still on my first cup of coffee), but there is now a default 'contact' that is called Someone AND if you are focused in the left-navi on the Waiting for list and use the n or t shorcut that 'contact' will be auto-filled in for you.
And on a mildly humorous note, if we didn't require a "for" then it would have to be called "Just Waiting" which would then seem equivalent to "Someday" and so be redundant.
Cheers,
David
6 Posted by Proximo on 16 Oct, 2011 03:25 AM
Good point David.
I think the solution for Brett would be the "Someone" contact. This way he does not have to create a new contact every time but he can still see which task are waiting on someone to take action.
To make this work, the task must clearly mention who you are waiting for.
7 Posted by Pietrole on 17 Oct, 2011 12:26 AM
From a legal context to Nirvana, I actually routinely employ 'Waiting for' group entries, as I'd have literally hundreds otherwise. One of the main ones is an 'Opponent' or 'Client' item, for my various legal matters where I'm waiting for a response from the other side or my own client. I know by just looking at the task name (which I preface with the file name) who I'm waiting on exactly.
It's not so much a matter of shoe-horning Nirvana to GTD as it is a practical implementation of GTD generally. Definitely need to have some indicator of who I'm waiting on, though-- if I can't ascertain who it is at a glance, I give the item it's own waiting for name (eg. experts).
8 Posted by Proximo on 17 Oct, 2011 03:16 AM
@Pietrole
A job that requires you to label someone as an "Opponent" is really cool. :-)
I guess that's the Soldier in me coming out. Work in a much more peaceful environment now. lol
9 Posted by caleb on 18 Oct, 2011 09:23 PM
I've also had this issue and resolved it by using company names instead of individual names. You don't end up with so many names on your list that need cleaned up and it's still easy to find follow-up items for a specific person later if you are going to be meeting with them or visiting their office.
10 Posted by brett on 20 Oct, 2011 12:17 PM
The responses to this thread have really helped me. I have started using "someone" when it doesn't make sense to create a new contact. I like the idea of using a company name as well.
net-net my workflow works well. The only complaint I have is that he word "someone" is odd. Who are you waiting for "someone" doesn't that sound weird?
I guess I could create my own like "subject"
11 Posted by Chris Webb on 20 Oct, 2011 02:58 PM
Rather than use 'Someone' why not create a contact called 'Godot' - that sounds less weird :-)