Hierarchical Projects to be able to disintegrate extremely large projects
Let projects have sub-projects which are can be projects themselves. This also gets rid of the "Group". So top level project A has A1, A2, A3 as sub-projects, and A1 may further have subprojects A1.1, A1.2, .. and so on
daniel jackman commented
companies like monday, wrike, clickup, teamwork, flow all have this functionality it would be nice to have another later like they do - folders.
May be in your case it will be easier to have tags added to projects with ability to filter quickly all "Photoshop" projects on Dashboard?
I think if we will even add it and you will start branching it will become a pain to open and find projects anyway.
Where it is really needed (case I am dealing with right now) is when multinational company wants to have area for each country where project groups can be created but still a possibility to see all projects across their business for those who need it. This is clearly one level more is needed in addition to what we have and I am still thinking if we should add just one more level or go crazy and allow people to make infinite hierarchy for their projects. may be 2 levels + tags for projects. I am sure you are familiar with tags concept since your are in photography business.
What do you think?
Global search - yes we need it as well as ability to search inside uploaded office and text documents and PDF's.
Good question. It is for project groups. For example: Within the Photo Services group for our store, we would like to add subgroups for organizational purposes. They would be Photoshop, slide scanning, black & white, outlab, etc. It would help greatly and be a neater dashboard if we could look under a major group, then find the sub group instead of looking through all the orders. It would save alot of time. In addition, a search feature would be really helpful which I voted for. Each order is bagged with its own unique number, so when a customer comes in and we can't find the order, we can search to see if it is still in progress or finished. Thanks for listening and your the best!
David M. commented
I doubt we will allow not limited nesting.
We will add sub-tasks - they are needed but it will be one level below TODO.
If a TODO (having optionally sub-tasks) becomes very big - converting it into a project can be added in Freedcamp. Attached files need to be moved to a new project. TODO will become a project & sub-tasks will become TODOs.
We also should allow to move individual TODOs and TODO groups as well as Discussions and Files to another project.
I just can not give you any ETA now with team size and our priorities. This is not highest one unfortunately. We are working on closing seed round to speed it up and ... thank for posting suchdetailed clarification.
Tim H commented
There were some misunderstandings in my last comment - I didn't realize that you could create todo groups. So the system is more flexible than I'd realized. However, I still support the idea of better project hierarchies. Todo groups are nice, but they still feel unnecessarily complicated. Right now, it seems that there are four levels to the organizational hierarchy 'project groups', 'projects', 'todo groups', and 'todos.' Each of those levels has a slightly different UI.
Instead of four different things, I think we'd be better off with two things: containers (analogous to filesystem folders), and leaves. The leaves would have details about specific tasks, and could be organized in a hierarchical way using containers, with containers being nestable within other containers.
I think this would be fairly easy to implement. For example, if you allowed me to put todo groups inside other todo groups, then I think I'd be content.
Tim H commented
Igor - for me, groups/projects/todos doesn't work because 1) the number of levels in the organizational hierarchy is limited, and 2) each level works in a different way.
Re #1: With groups/projects/todos, I am limited to an organizational hierarchy that is no more than 3 levels deep. You could add sub-tasks, and (I think) that would let me have an organizational hierarchy that is 4 levels deep, but I would still be limited to 4 levels. I would like to have the flexibility to use as many levels of organization as I need.
Re #2: Suppose I want to rearrange my organizational hierarchy. Suppose I've been working on a 'project group' for a while, and I find that one of the 'todos' is much more complicated than I'd thought, and would be better off as a 'project' than as a 'todo'. Because the system treats 'todos' as different than 'projects', I'd have to create a whole new project, and copy information from the existing todo into the new project. That's unnecessarily complicated.
If you changed the system so that projects could hold other projects (the same way that folders can hold other folders in a desktop filesystem), then users (like me) could create any sort of hierarchy that we wanted. Further, if we wanted to change something, like upgrading a leaf-level project to a mid-level project, we could just drag-and-drop, and move the leaf-level project to a different place in the hierarchy.
Could you please clarify why project groups/projects/todos/sub-tasks(will be added soon) does not work for you? Why project groups are not good?