Rachel posted nothing about giving “two weeks notice” when she announced the resignation and your mention of it now is the first time I’m hearing of it out of the hundreds of comments left between you and others on various blogs.

Had she given proper two weeks’ notice, a resignation e-mail would have been unnecessary and redundant. (Or are you saying that Mike didn’t check his e-mail for two weeks?)

All the companies I’ve worked for normally have a process whereby an employee tenders his two weeks’ notice, the boss acknowledges it, and on the final day we bid him adieu. No second resignation letter necessary.

Instead, she posts a curt notice on her blog linking to a post he published showcasing another designer’s mock up less than 24 hours after sending Mike an e-mail. Quite frankly, she reminded me of a teenager storming out of her job at McDonald’s during the lunch rush because her boss pissed her off. Hardly proper business etiquette.

How difficult would it have been to simply write:

Two weeks notice was given to Michael Arrington and as of today, I’ve resigned from the TechCrunch project. (or something to this effect.)

or, even, when she gave her two weeks notice and had it acknowledged by Mike:

Two weeks’ notice of my resignation from the TechCrunch project has been given to Michael Arrington.

and leave it at that? Not waiting for any amount of time to pass from e-mail to blog post and linking to the post she did certainly showed that Rachel was not in the best of moods.

I stand by my statements. Both Michael and Rachel behaved unprofessionally in this situation and much of this could have been avoided if one of the two parties had just taken the high road. Period.

Hindsight is 20/20 — take the advice you’re given, learn from it, and move on.

I find it somewhat amusing that Rachel’s resignation was viewed as hypersensitive. I would make the same comparison to anyone who cried foul at not being able to make the first public statement.

So Michael found out from reading the trackback from another blog. Big deal. It wasn’t Rachel’s fault that he read that before the actual message. All this fuss is just tears over spilt milk to me.

Or, does business etiquette become a moot point when we’re on the internet?

Couldn’t you at least wait 24 hours for Michael to actually read the e-mail and respond?

In case it wasn’t fully clear by that statement, yes, I read that Rachel sent Michael a resignation e-mail. But, by blogging about her resignation without allowing Michael ample time to respond (or even see it) was unprofessional no matter how you spin it.

You’re her husband, I understand your need to defend her, but sometimes I believe your love blurs your better judgement.

I would have thought that posting about this more than a week after it happened that you would have had more than ample time to read everything that has been said. Obviously not. I’m not sure how many times it has been said but Rachel didn’t fire her client via her blog. After she had resigned from her position she made a brief statement that she had just resigned - a simple press release to state something that had ‘already happened’.