Definitive no to LG U+ cross-distro package support - the test is whether we would ship it down the middle for everyone

July 27, 2026 at 11:53 PMstrategyhigh

Situation

LG U+ wants to run DNF update on RHEL servers pointed only at CIQ/Rocky repos, which touches bootloader packages and breaks the system on reboot. They rejected the exclude-packages workaround. In the LG - Next Steps meeting Peter refused to let the discussion be about whether the ask is a bug or whether it closes the deal, and reframed it to a single question for Justin: is this something we would do down the middle for everybody, or is it one-off work for LG. Justin answered we cannot support it. Peter then gave the definitive verdict: no, this is not something CIQ Engineering is going to support. He posted the same conclusion in the temp-lg channel after aligning with Bjorn, and handed customer messaging to Bjorn with Tommy and Art.

Reasoning

Peter refuses to spend mainline engineering on work that only ever serves one customer. His stated criterion is down-the-middle applicability, not deal value - he explicitly cut off Brady when Brady framed it as whether it drives additional deals. The deeper argument is capacity allocation: almost all engineering time goes to the customers CIQ did something weird and one-off for, and none goes to RLC AI. Growing to board-level scale requires forcing the customer base onto the truck rather than forking engineering per customer. He connected this to Greg wanting customers to love CIQ and reframed it - the way to have the most customers love you is sometimes to tell a prospect they should not be a customer.

Additional Context

Multi-week Slack drag-out preceded this. Sales had told LG this should work. Peter also noted the same argument likely applies to Citadel and Jump kernel requests, and said he had made that argument about Citadel in the last few days.

Observed Evidence

Three independent sources within four hours: the pre-call DM to Ryan stating the criterion, the Fathom transcript delivering the verdict, and the post-call channel summary aligning with Bjorn. Peter opened the meeting by installing the criterion before any technical discussion happened.

Matching Patterns

40%
Protect Engineering Capacity(keyword match on scope/support, same category (strategy))
80%
Reclassify to Route - Decide Who Owns It, Then Give a Criterion Not a Verdict(2 keyword matches, involves Justin Haynes, Ryan Smith, same category (strategy))

Confidence Breakdown

34/35
Evidence
27/30
Pattern
20/20
Source
14/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Engineering has a bright line and it is not negotiable by sales pressure. The line is drawn on generality, not on revenue.
Who Affected:Sales and APAC account teams lose an implied yes they had already communicated; Support (Howard) stops being the bad-news messenger; Citadel and Jump kernel asks now face the same test.
Precedent:Establishes a reusable test - would we do this down the middle for everybody - that any future one-off customer ask must pass. Peter named Citadel as the next application.
Consequences:Real. Peter accepted the risk that the deal may be lost and that CIQ may have some liability exposure per Bjorn.
Timing:Now because the question had been relitigated for weeks and each re-escalation was training sales that persistence changes the answer.

Related Context

🎥
LG - Next Steps

fathom

Cards on the table, I am not going to support one-off work. ... So I think the very short answer here is no to Art question. No, this is not something CIQ Engineering is going to support.

💬
#temp-lg-uplus-rhel-ol-ciq-packages-support

slack

The ask is not something we want to provide to any customer, as it does not follow the way DNF is designed to function. So it would be one-off ongoing support work, which is not the footing we want main-line engineering on in order to be efficient.

💬
DM with Ryan Smith

slack

What I care about, the only thing I care about - is that what we are doing is NOT 1-off work for LG. If it is something we should be doing regardless of LG, great! IF not, then I am not supportive.

Outcome

The no held and nothing shipped. But the account is unresolved, sales pitched unworkable solutions anyway and delivered a mea culpa, and it now consumes both Peter and Justin.

Rating: 3/5

Decision ID: 9f1cf15c-7547-4cbb-8bc3-697d463063b2