Enforced Product-owns-prioritization process with Greg

February 6, 2026 at 5:31 PMoperationalhigh

Situation

Pushed back directly on Greg when he tried to route engineering work outside the established prioritization process. Insisted Product owns the priority list and work requests must flow through the proper channel. Simultaneously reminded Chris Baek that his team owns signoff authority and should use it rather than escalating through Greg.

Reasoning

The process is the only scalable way to manage engineering work for 60 people. Allowing the CEO to bypass it teaches everyone the process is optional, which kills it. Brady and Brian need to use the tools they've been given (priority list, signoff authority) rather than complaining to Greg. This also protects Greg from getting too deep in the weeds.

Additional Context

Greg was in a 'get in the weeds mood' that day, trying to push engineering work directly. Peter had to wave him off multiple things. The issue was specifically about RLC ISO work where Brady/Brian were unhappy with engineering's output but hadn't used the signoff process.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes: 'Greg. This isn't how work gets in front of engineering. Product owns the priority list.' / 'I've given them ALL of the tools to control this. But I need them to use those tools and not go out-of-band.' / 'Your team owns signoff... Not running it through Greg.' / 'The misalignment keeps happening because Brady and Brian won't follow the process.'

Matching Patterns

45%
Protect Engineering Focus Through Process(keyword match on process/prioritization, same category)
30%
Protect Engineering Capacity(forcing prioritization upstream)

Confidence Breakdown

34/35
Evidence
26/30
Pattern
19/20
Source
14/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Signals to the entire org that the Product/Engineering process is authoritative, even when the CEO tries to shortcut it
Who Affected:All of engineering (60 people), Brady, Brian, and anyone who might try to bypass Product prioritization
Precedent:Establishes that even the CEO routes through Product. Major precedent for organizational process discipline.
Consequences:Strong language IS the boundary-setting, not a warning. The consequence of not following is continued pushback.
Timing:Reactive to Greg's in-the-weeds mood that day, but the principle is long-standing and recurring

Source

reflection

AI Confidence

93%

Related Context

💬
Group DM (Greg, Peter, Justin)

slack

Greg. This isn't how work gets in front of engineering. Product owns the priority list.

💬
DM with Chris Baek

slack

Your team owns signoff on whether what eng built is acceptable and meets your requirements. That's the tool. Not running it through Greg.

💬
DM with Greg

slack

The problem is the misalignment keeps happening because Brady and Brian won't follow the process. I NEED them to follow it.

Outcome

Message is still not landing that deviating from the process causes suboptimal outcomes and a focus on lower priority efforts as well as unnecessary context switching from senior engineers.

Rating: 2/5

Decision ID: 6eb28685-f49f-453c-8f67-8eef3b0bce75