Brady
Dec 19, 2025 - Mar 13, 2026
38
Decisions
0
Active Todos
8
Patterns
Decisions (38)
Reaffirmed Speed-First Culture to Brady Before Leave
Reaffirmed to Brady that the directive is move fast and break things — leadership provides air cover. Corrected a team perception that leadership expects both speed AND perfect quality.
AI Governance Single-Track Pivot for ISO 42001
Pivoted AI governance from dual-track (internal vs products) to single rigorous model because CIQ products (RLCAI, Fuzzball, Werewolf) now directly integrate AI, changing the liability profile.
Enforcing Product Process for Greg's RLCAI Requirements
Enforcing the correct process by directing all of Greg's RLCAI requirements to the Product team rather than allowing Greg to bypass Product and give direct requirements to Engineering. Brian Dawson raised the concern; Peter is supporting and enforcing.
Team Building Mandate — 6-Month Priority Over Features
Directed all engineering managers to prioritize team building over feature delivery for the next six months. Includes permission to swap out low performers, with Peter providing air cover for the risks involved.
Set maximum urgency on LTS 9.6 i686 package crisis
Nathan escalated that i686 multilib packages were never built for LTS 9.6 — the S3 bucket and Peridot config were never created. Every LTS 9.6 package with i686 variants is missing them. Brady flagged Siemens as a customer that specifically cares about i686. Peter acknowledged the escalation and set maximum urgency expectation.
Coached Justin on Michael performance management with net-good framework
In Justin 1:1, directed Justin to deliver direct performance feedback to Michael next week with Andrew-level success metrics. Framed PIP as high-bar exercise to confirm exit decision. Differentiated Michael (low performer, manage out) from Brady (high potential, wrong role, coach/move). Used weeding the garden and Expedition 33 metaphors to help Justin reconcile empathy with accountability.
Committed to Google contract restructure proposal within 1 week
Secured commitment from Google's senior management to consider a contract restructure addressing financial unsustainability. Peter committed to delivering a formal proposal for new contract terms within one week.
Set Google GDC meeting strategy: build direct relationship and manage attendee roles
Peter decided to attend the Google GDC executive meeting himself (without Greg), bringing Max, Brady, and Nathan. Will personally manage Nathan's participation to protect Brady's roadmap presentation. Kelly directed to tell Google 'Peter has this covered.'
Mandated accelerated cadence with coordination accountability
In Department Heads meeting, mandated announcements every 2-4 weeks as non-negotiable. Drew accountability line: engineering protected for speed mistakes but NOT for coordination failures (status updates, product priorities, public channel decisions). Framed as make-or-break period driven by $30B revenue goal and Middle East partnership success.
Mobilized team for Saudi meeting prep and escalated NVIDIA DOCA blocker
Peter personally intervened to prepare team for critical Saudi Arabia partner meeting on RLC-AI. Posted in #product-rlc-ai asking about CUDA/DOCA availability, discovered NVIDIA written approval for DOCA OFED still pending. Emailed Scott Hara (NVIDIA) directly to advance the approval. Tagged Nathan, Justin, Jeff Uphoff, and Damen Knight demanding they answer Max's detailed technical questions within 24 hours. Set hard deadline: '24 hours from now.' Bjorn committed to calling Scott to reaffirm DOCA modification rights.
Demanded war-room or date ranges for RLC Pro release dates
Marketing (Lindsay Aamodt) published release dates in #department-heads: Feb 19 RLC Pro, Feb 26 RLC Pro AI, Mar 5 RLC AMD. Justin Haynes responded that dates were 'written in light pencil.' Peter directed Justin: if dates aren't confident, either commit with a war-room to hit them, or provide GTM with ranges now so they can plan. Justin acknowledged and scheduled time with leads.
Established 'what vs how' framework for Product-Engineering communication
In weekly sync with Brady and Brian, established a clear framework: Product defines the 'what' (exit criteria with specific, aggressive targets like 'ISO builds <4 hours'), Engineering defines the 'how'. Vague communication to leadership creates unnecessary reactive work and must stop. Escalation path defined: weekly syncs or on-demand to Peter for process breakdowns only.
Approved RLC+ and Pro product hierarchy with new naming and de-risked launch cadence
Approved a new product hierarchy: Stock Rocky (pure community mirror), RLC+ (free with NVIDIA/AMD drivers), RLC Pro (paid tiers). The RLC name now signifies CIQ value-add. Also approved a de-risked 3-phase launch cadence: Phase 1 (Feb) bundles RLC Pro + RLC Plus NVIDIA; Phase 2 (Feb) RLC Pro AI; Phase 3 (Mar) RLC Plus AMD partnership. Identified backporting vs roll-forward policy gap as a pre-launch blocker.
Enforced Product-owns-prioritization process with Greg
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.
AMD RLC Plus Strategy: Speed-to-Market with Minimal Scope
Decided to prioritize speed-to-market for the RLC Plus AMD co-marketing launch. The initial build will use upstream AMD packages (pre-built ROCm), the kernel driver (not upstream DKMS), and enable EPEL. Deferring the more robust in-house rebuild until market traction is proven. Justin Haynes to draft proposal and decision matrix.
Position Bjorn as escalation point for Tenable business readiness
Decided to position Bjorn as the escalation point for Brady to resolve Tenable business-side roadblocks on the Nessus plugin integration. Technical pipeline (Sam's work) is ~95% unblocked and can deliver data within weeks, but business side may not be ready.
PRD first drafts are gravel - meant to be thrown away
Get product to understand that the first iteration of a PRD exists to be thrown away. Its gravel, not precious. Engineering questions should come fast and furious, and the document should go through massive churn. Pride of authorship must be eliminated.
Stop coaching product, move to SLAs
Stop trying to teach product managers (Brady, Brian, Dawson) how to do their jobs better. Instead, provide prescriptive SLAs - clear timelines and direct questions. If they dont like the dates, they can restructure their requirements. Leave it on the floor and walk away.
PRD contract process - stop teaching product
Stop trying to teach product how to write PRDs. Define acceptance criteria for PRDs, respond within 24-48 hours, rearrange and cut scope ourselves, and hand back a contract. They can accept or negotiate, but no endless back-and-forth. Engineering restructures the work and presents how we will deliver.
Everfox partnership requires ARR-target-level contract to proceed
Participated in technical scoping meeting with Everfox to understand feasibility of supporting their RHEL 8 to RHEL 10 migration for 100k+ hardened thin client units. Meeting was exploratory - no commitment made.
Losing patience with Brady - not seeing him learn
Expressed that patience is running out with Brady because he is not learning. His goals are reasonable but his execution (adding unnecessary content to PRDs) is not improving despite feedback.
Explored Max taking Product role for Linux
Floated the idea of Max potentially taking a Product role for Linux (or the head of Product for Linux role) while acknowledging his preference not to manage people. Framed as a question to explore optionality.
Reinforced Product-Engineering handoff process with tighter SLAs
Reinforced existing handoff process between Product and Engineering: simplified 2-page PRDs with clear Exit Criteria, one-business-day feedback SLA from Engineering Managers, and all communication in Jira (not Slack) for audit trails.
Empowered Justin to own RLC 9.7/9.6 LTS ship criteria
Directed Justin to define and own the ship criteria for RLC 9.7 and 9.6 LTS releases, bypassing Product inability to provide a clear definition of done. Justin will draft a 5-line definition and present it to Brady. Peter will provide air cover for any product fallout.
Require mandatory tagging of all fully AI-generated content
AI Committee established policy that all fully AI-generated content must be tagged to manage user expectations. Applies only to fully AI-generated content, not human-reviewed or AI-assisted work. Format and placement of tags is flexible.
Empower Justin to own RLC 9.7/9.6 LTS ship criteria
Justin will define and own the ship criteria for RLC 9.7 and 9.6 LTS releases. He will create a 5-point launch checklist and share it with Brady for approval, bypassing Product inability to provide a clear definition of done.
Established escalation protocol for Product blockers
When Product (specifically Dawson) does not respond to meeting requests blocking engineering work, Nathan should explicitly request the meeting, then escalate to Peter and Bjorn via Slack if no response within 1-2 days. This creates a documented pattern of Product blocking Engineering.
Redirected Brady to use prioritization tools instead of pushing hard
Directed Brady Dibble to use the order of operations (prioritization list) as his tool for influencing engineering priorities, rather than pushing uncomfortably hard on individual teams. Emphasized that the prioritization list is his lever to move all of engineering, and if the order of operations is wrong, the fix is to change it formally with Peter, Bjorn, and Justin.
Strategic Map Framework - Value Drivers vs Internal Efficiency Separation
Established new H1 strategic planning framework that separates customer-facing Value Drivers from Internal Efficiency Drivers. Framework uses three lanes: middle lane for Value Drivers (the WHY), top lane for GTM activities, bottom lane for engineering deliverables. Also established phased estimation process: low-confidence ballpark dates first, then engineering-only session to raise confidence.
Work intake must flow through managers, not directly to engineers
Established new process where small customer requests go to Engineering Managers (Justin, Chris W.) for approval. EMs will attend bi-weekly CECA board review to ensure they are in the loop on incoming work.
H1 Planning Framework - 3-Lane Model
Introduced a new 3-lane planning model to address GTM and Engineering misalignment. Top Lane (GTM): marketing campaigns, messaging. Middle Lane (Value Drivers): the why - market state change, ICP, business significance. Bottom Lane (Engineering): deliverables driven by Value Drivers.
Google Scope Change - Hold the Line on Commercial Terms
Google is pushing scope changes that bundle 8 versions into a 5-version contract, omit EOL dates, and include undefined dev streams. This creates scope creep risk and jeopardizes the Extended LTS revenue stream (~$300k/year per product). Decision to personally attend the Monday meeting with Tissa (with Max) to hold the line. Greg will NOT attend to preserve escalation path.
H1 Planning Strategy - Aggressive Goals with Staggered Milestones
Articulated H1 strategy: shift from hope to concrete plan with aggressive audacious goals. Achieve goals differently not just faster. Staggered milestones every 4-6 weeks for course correction. Missed milestones trigger retrospectives for process or personnel changes. Clear prioritization at Reno eliminating everything is P0 problem.
Product-Engineering Quick Estimation Process
Articulated position on providing quick, low-confidence estimates for Product prioritization. Engineering should provide 20% confidence SWAGs on demand so Product can do early prioritization - these are not commitments engineering can be held to. Distinguished between committing to work without a design (bad) vs providing a quick guess marked as such (good).
Engineering Blockers - Immediate Escalation Required
Established that engineering blockers (being stumped) must be escalated to Peter immediately. Product should not bail out engineering by providing solutions (like YAML files with business logic).
CVE Remediation - Direct Intervention Required
Identified unacceptable lack of urgency from Nathan team on NARF-created CVEs. Will take direct action to address performance issues next week.
ProServe Work Prioritization Process
Established new process for handling professional services work: ProServe work will be prioritized against existing roadmap, not by dropping in-flight work. Product (Brady) owns prioritization decision, Engineering determines timing based on capacity.
RLC 9.7 Launch Path Decision
Participated in RLC 9.7 Launch planning meeting to decide path forward on release and rework priorities.
Related Patterns (8)
Executive Sponsorship for Strategic Partnerships
Strategic cross-company initiatives and major client partnerships require executive-level accountability to move at the right pace and ensure proper prioritization.
Small Circle for Sensitive Operations
When executing sensitive strategic operations, keep the circle of informed people as small as possible to prevent leaks that could accelerate hostile action or undermine the initiative.
Proactive Talent Pipeline Investment
Invest in building leadership bench and talent relationships before there is an urgent need. Use proven relationships from past experience to create optionality.
Protect Engineering Capacity
When external demands threaten to overload engineering capacity, protect capacity by either requiring the demand to come with additional resources, or forcing hard prioritization choices upstream.
Accountability Follow-Through
When you issue a warning or mandate with stated consequences, you follow through. Warnings are not threats - they are commitments. The credibility of future accountability depends on following through now.
Lead by Example with New Tools
When championing new tools or processes, personally use them and share results rather than just advocating. Learning by doing and demonstrating value through example is more effective than mandates.
Protect Engineering Focus Through Process
When faced with requests that would disrupt engineering focus (from sales, governance, product, or other stakeholders), establish processes that protect engineering ability to innovate while still satisfying legitimate concerns. Prefer systematic solutions over ad-hoc responses.
Three-Lever Talent Management
When pursuing a velocity or performance mandate, simultaneously operate on all three talent levers — upgrade (hire better), retain (protect key people), and exit (remove blockers) — rather than sequentially. This creates compounding momentum: exits free capacity for upgrades, retention preserves institutional knowledge during transitions, and upgrades raise the performance bar that justifies further exits.