emacs-wiki-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[emacs-wiki-discuss] planner-rank suggestion/idea


From: Jeremy Cowgar
Subject: [emacs-wiki-discuss] planner-rank suggestion/idea
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:41:13 -0500
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.12.1 (99 Luftballons-pre) Emacs/22.0 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)

I really like the idea of the planner-rank module, however, I can
think of 1 thing that would really make it rock. An overall
importance/urgency associated with the project.

For instance, I find it difficult to determine an importance level for
a single task amongst 100 tasks in my planner. I use planner for home
and work, I'll give you an example of for home.

I have a plan page for Bills, Car Maintenance, and Lawn Care. These
are really just three examples. Lawn Care might have 30 tasks, Car
Maintenance I hope has none, and Bills I also hope has none, but we
all know that's not true. Let's say 10 for those two. So, total I have
50 tasks. When I add a new task to Lawn Care, I have to think in my
mind ok, what do I have to do in Bills and Car Maintenance?

I *could*, however, think of what this tasks importance is to Lawn
Care. For instance, mowing the lawn should be a 9. watering the back
flower garden that's ugly to begin with a 4. Then, an overall
importance on Lawncare of 5.

Now, let's set the Bills importance to 9. I now add a bill (electric
payment) at 9, house payment (10). w/o the overall plan page's
importance level, if I had my mowing the lawn schedualed for
2004.02.14 and also my electric payment for the same date, they would
be on the same ranking. However, that's not true! I would much rather
have tall grass and electric than short grass and no electric..

So, let's add a over all importance of 9 to Bills. Now, an identical
importance level task and deadline in bills out weighs that of one in
Lawn Care.

Again, the whole idea here is to be able to think about the tasks you
have for *the* plan you are working in, not *all* plans that exist,
that scope is too large for most of us to handle..

What do you think? Did I describe the situation in an understandable
method?

I would be interested in some discussion.

--
Jeremy Cowgar

(def signature ()
  (message "URL: http://jeremy.cowgar.com";)
  (message "Quote: Today's luxuries become tomorrows necessities -- Me"))
(signature)




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]