I don't have my copy of "The David"'s book handy, but I thought that
using priorities to choose between tasks in the same context is okay.
Using priorities as a global ordering seems to be discouraged.
Priorities can be updated during your weekly review. Maybe I'm
imagining this?
I hate tools that don't provide priorities, because then I have to
scan my entire list, every time I look at it. (Remember my base
assumption, which is that I have 100+ actionable items.) If the tool
provides them and people don't want to use them, that's easy. But if
the tool doesn't provide them it's very hard to simulate them. I
thought about creating contexts with names like "High", "Medium",
"Low" but since there'd be no way to sort based on those it's not
really helpful.
Maybe you think my base assumption needs to be re-examined: Maybe 100
tasks is too many? But that is counter to GTD thinking -- GTD
encourages you to get *everything* down in your system, no matter how
trivial, so that your mind can be clear. And I usually have no
trouble thinking of 100 things I need to get done eventually (the joys
of home ownership!). I'm sure there are people who have 200, 300, or
more tasks in their list. Trying to manage lists of this size without
priorities seems unmanageable to me.
Dave