You declined a popular idea on the grounds that it was incompatible with GTD methodology and you were trying to stay true. I am new to GTD, so perhaps I don't understand it enough to see how a Waiting box in the Focus Areas would not be true to his methodology. As I see it, the "Waiting" box is one of only three possible outcomes of work flow processing.
On his Work Flow graphic on page 156, the bottom line contains only three options: "Waiting", "Calendar", "Next Actions".
I thought my pre-fabbed "Areas" boxes corresponded to the GTD work flow graphic on a pretty 1:1 basis. Other than the conspicuous absence of the "Waiting" box, that is.
"In-Basket" = Inbox
"Next Actions" = Next
"Waiting" = ????
Then on page 157, he offers this list of "buckets". These also seemed to correspond to your layout, except for the non-existent "Waiting For" list:
“A “Projects” list = Projects
• Project support material = Paper clips
• Calendared actions and information = Scheduled
• “Next Actions” lists = Next
• A “Waiting For” list = ??????
• Reference material = Paper clips/integration with drives
• A “Someday/Maybe” list” = Someday
Again, I'm curious how a Waiting area would not be compatible with the methodology. It seems essential to the methodology. Literally the bottom line.
Your work around wouldn't work for me
Otherwise the layout is fantastic.
FIrst we would like to say thank you to those that have taken the time to express their opinion on adding a “Waiting For” focus area as well as those who have voted for this change. We want you to know that we are listening. Our team has met and discussed your very valid points. We stand corrected and agree that adding a “Waiting For” focus area absolutely fits into David Allen’s methodology and it would enhance the functionality of our Get It Done app.
Our developers are currently working on this feature request and we will be sure to update you once we are ready to release the update.
We would like to clarify that in no way were we trying to increase our paid subscription plans by offering a workaround that is only included in our paid plans. We apologize if this is how our initial response was perceived. We pride ourselves in the fact that our free version is completely functional to many of our users.
Abby Fichtner commented
I 100% agree, although is a way to fix the title of this request to “Add Waiting For” so that when others are browsing they realize what this is and so know to add their votes if they agree?
Lara Osborne commented
Katherine, I'm very happy to revive and support your idea. Their rationale didn't make sense to me. It seems like a marketing ploy for a service that, as a self-employed person, I can't really use yet.
GTD has the Three Ds, three possible ways to deal with actionable items. Do, Delegate, Defer. That is the whole universe of possibilities when processing "stuff".
Delegate = Waiting For
Defer = Calendar and Next Actions
I'm surprised more people aren't frustrated by the lack of this core, central, essential component of the system.
Katharine Trim commented
That was my idea, and I'm happy that someone much more articulately argued for it! I do agree that having that extra area of focus to triage things that are on hold is consistent. The work around that suggested, adding people, costs additional fees. I didn't feel it really worked around the problem of clutter in my inbox. Anyway, voting for my idea again.