ThinkingRock Forum

Hello, in the GTD book I own, the following steps are described for projects: (Translated from German translation of the book.)

• Purpose
• Fundamentals
• Vision
• Brainstorming
• Organizing
• Finding the next step

Unfortunately, TR does miss the second field. Also, the field “Organizing” is not really needed, because you do that by adding actions to the project anyway.

Today, I got reminded of that missing field, and its importance, when I read this comment in a forum:
Those assumptions are exactly those fundamentals. It fits nicely into GTD, and I think it really is the same thing.

I still haven’t got used to NetBeans and did not pull the source into it, so I can’t do it myself. I fear I would destroy the file format or not save the field.
So I ask if you could just rename the field “Organizing” to “Assumptions”, and move it up, between “Purpose” and “Vision”?

(A workaround until then, is to use the field “Organizing” as if it were the field “Assumptions”.)

In my version of the book (UK) the first part of the project planning has "Purpose and Principals". I guess that Principals has been translated to Fundamentals.
David Allen then gives and example of going out to dinner, where your principles may include your standards of food and service, affordability, convenience, etc.
Is this what you mean and do you think we should include another space for Principles?

Yes, I think this is it. I tried to translate it back. The German book uses the word “Grundlagen” (see link for translations).

It is described as some basic rules, and that you should ask yourself “What could go wrong? What could hinder the success?”. Something like that.

I think this step of project planning is underrated. You won’t know what went wrong, when you don’t know what you expected. Which is even more important, when there is some client for a project. (Eg. assuming that the client platform for the product supports J2SE 1.7.)
Maybe one can even relate it to why programming languages have assertion statements. (Which in programming would be better solved with proper input handling, but whatever… ^^)

How’s it going? It this feature going to be an option? (An option would be better than forcing everybody to use it like that, wouldn’t it?)
And if yes, then in what version?

*bump(ing it again)*

Allright. As it seems, this is not happening, I’m now doing the patch myself.
But I’m moving from TR to my own advanced GTD system soon anyway.
(BTW: Will TR 3 ever become open source? Or will we have to re-implement it as such? ^^)

Sorry but TR is the only revenues. So TR 3 is not going to be open source for a while.

Is it not easier (and more time efficient) to just purchase a license than re-writting your own?

_________________
Claire
ThinkingRock Analyst and Tester

Could I modify it, when I would get a license?
If not, what’s the point?
(Well OK, it’s just a list of commands for my CPU. Of course I could always modify it. But I meant more comfortably than without.)

Sorry I did not answer until now.

I just grew out of TR. Out of GTD. On to something way more advanced.
Since I am designing games now, I’ll make my own improvement of GTD into a game. With lots of automation and based on psychology.
I doubt even Java can offer the tools. That’s why I’m concentrating on Haskell for it.