On 1/9/11, Gregg Housh <
greggatghc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to hijack things, but I think you all might be interested in our new
> video, it should speak to most of you :)
>
>
http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/
>
> <
http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/>( direct youtube link:
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mip247JqRUs )
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> E-mail discussion probably is the best format for this. I'll weigh in if I
>> can but this really isn't my area so I will defer to the strongest hunter
>> of
>> the tribe.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Dynamic <
dynamicuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh, I see. I certainly trust your judgment here Campbell. If that's the
>>> case, then there's likely little need to have Nathalie involved, as I
>>> also
>>> would not like to pass control along to a third party without serious
>>> benefits.
>>>
>>> Given the following agenda:
>>>
>>> - Consolidation into a single, final list of the short term aims for the
>>> website, to best guide *Campbell and Sundeep* in implementation.
>>>
>>> - Long term possibilities for website exploitation - specifically, things
>>> we may want to consider having the site do in the future that may be made
>>> possible (or more importantly, may be made impossible) by *Campbell*'s
>>> concept.
>>>
>>>
>>> - System administration responsibilities - a very pleasant seeming person
>>> wrote us an in-depth resume and expressed considerable competence in this
>>> regard. We shall see if his schedule will allow him to attend the
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> ...... what does everything think of simply hammering out the details in
>>> this venue, the shared email chain?
>>>
>>> One additional agenda item, then, shall also be letting Nathalie know
>>> that
>>> we appreciate her offer but we have elected to work in-house. Is that
>>> agreed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Campbell, we wrote you a check worth one Emma. Best hurry, the way
>>> currencies are depreciating I can't imagine she'll be worth much in short
>>> order. One stipulation - you should probably congratulate her on her new
>>> post at Cambridge, which is a worthwhile accomplishment she has won by
>>> virtue, no doubt, of her very superior bra size, which she never tires of
>>> reminding us about. Little known fact - if you re-arrange the letters in
>>> "Emma" and also add back in all the letters which are usually covered up
>>> by
>>> her boobs, it spells "ridiculously enlarged mammary glands." I would
>>> probably go by "Emma" too, if that were my full name.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Vertesi.com <
campbell@vertesi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bad news - I'm in the air all weekend, flying back to France. So Sunday
>>>> is out.
>>>>
>>>> I think one thing we have to nail down right away is a distinction about
>>>> what we want Nathalie to do. My understanding was that she was offering
>>>> the
>>>> simple, relatively static website for the group - basically what we
>>>> already
>>>> have in place at
projectpm.singingsites.com. If that's correct, I think
>>>> we'll have a hard time finding a real reason to LOSE control over our
>>>> hosting and site in favor of her company.
>>>>
>>>> But if she's proposing that her company should build the actual web
>>>> application, that may be a different matter. Personally I would be
>>>> surprised
>>>> if that were the case - I can tell you that serious drupal development
>>>> firms
>>>> would charge $20-$40k for a refined version of what we have built
>>>> already.
>>>> (I'll assume my check is in the mail... Lol)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Dynamic <
dynamicuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For whatever reason, that last one didn't go to Sundeep or Campbell;
>>>> both
>>>> of you, please take a look at the quoted text directly below when you
>>>> have a
>>>> chance. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> This email is to include them in the chain of responses.
>>>>
>>>> Also to suggest that perhaps Saturday morning/early afternoon be in
>>>> consideration as well; certainly it would meet my preferences, and I
>>>> believe
>>>> Sunday was selected fairly arbitrarily. I am flexible, however.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers all
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Dynamic < <
dynamicuno@gmail.com>
>>>>
dynamicuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nathalie is not involved in this branch of the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that we are looking to move forward promptly on a primary website
>>>>> as a central repository of information and recruitment point, here are
>>>>> some
>>>>> topics for discussion at the meeting this weekend:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Consolidation into a single, final list of the short term aims for
>>>>> the
>>>>> website, to best guide Nathalie in implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Long term possibilities for website exploitation - specifically,
>>>>> things we may want to consider having the site do in the future that
>>>>> may be
>>>>> made possible (or more importantly, may be made impossible) by
>>>>> Nathalie's
>>>>> concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> - System administration responsibilities - a very pleasant seeming
>>>>> person wrote us an in-depth resume and expressed considerable
>>>>> competence in
>>>>> this regard. We shall see if his schedule will allow him to attend the
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meeting attendees who are most urgently required:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sundeep - Site development expert
>>>>> Barrett - Vision
>>>>> Gregg - SEO
>>>>> Joe Neal - Sysadmin work
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be worth having if at all possible:
>>>>>
>>>>> Campbell - Integrating Project PM widget into the site may be better
>>>>> undertaken from the beginning, though we are naturally designing it to
>>>>> be
>>>>> easily integrated into existing sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott - Has, I think, the clearest overall picture of the project as a
>>>>> whole, and tends to have good insights (and keep us moving along when
>>>>> we
>>>>> stray)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously everybody on the team has a good mind - even you Emma, for a
>>>>> Brit - so anyone else who can make it ought to come along, you never
>>>>> know
>>>>> where the best insight will come from.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we had discussed *sigh* Sunday morning for this, in
>>>>> accommodation of Campbell's Frenchtacular schedule. What time works
>>>>> best for
>>>>> everyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> My preferred time on Sunday morning is probably 2 PM. Please don't
>>>>> forget, partying is legitimately my job on the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Scott Mintz < <
scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
>>>>>
scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nathalie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's wonderful news to hear that the offers still stands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately technical things are not one of my strong suits so I'm
>>>>>> not in a position to determine if this will be able to work with us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to forward your comments to a couple of our people, and will
>>>>>> get back to you as soon as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nathalie Pham < <
nat@npcreate.com>
>>>>>>
nat@npcreate.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Scott,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our offer stands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I need to emphasize that we already build the platform