Brady Dibble

Eliminate one-off release processes — paved-paths Jira initiative Peter commits to prioritize

Mandated elimination of all one-off release processes. Justin to file a Jira ticket for the paved-paths initiative; Peter commits to prioritize it. Companion to the Jira-as-system-of-record mandate established the same meeting. Direct response to recent CVE post-mortem revealing most products run ad-hoc release flows.

May 7

Coach Brady on 2-step framework (strategy first, tactics second) and enforce live

Taught Brady the 2-step framework in his weekly 1:1: define strategic What first, then plan tactical How with Engineering. Then enforced it live in the CVE post-mortem group DM with Brady and Brian. When Brady proposed concrete CVE-response solutions (cross-train engineers, designate a quarterback, escalation paths) without first clarifying priority trade-offs, Peter refused to engage on the solutions: Your job, your ONLY job, is prioritization. Step one is answer my question. Step two will never happen absent step one. Never. Not one time. Brady eventually conceded.

May 5

Three-tier board hierarchy formalized — Strategic EPICs / Value Drivers / Tactical Jira

Aligned with Bjorn on a 3-tier hierarchy: Strategic Board (EPICs requiring CEO-level prioritization), Value Drivers Board (GTM stories), and Tactical Boards (Jira execution). The current PPL board converts to the Strategic Board. Top ~50 only; anything below is wasted prioritization that will need redoing by the time it is worked on. Greg agreed to disagree-and-commit once Peter+Bjorn document the rules and walk him through.

May 5

PPL is being misused — push Bjorn to realign it to strategic priorities

The Product Priority List has drifted from a strategic-priority list (epic-level) into a granular project tracker, obscuring strategic priorities (RLCAI on Spark buried at #88) and creating bottlenecks (Ollama package delayed to May 15). Peters position: PPL must return to defining company strategy at epic level; granular tasks belong in JIRA. Will engage Bjorn directly to realign — this is the framing decision; the implementation is the negotiation with Bjorn.

May 4

Documentation process — Product defines exit criteria in Jira, Engineering delivers

Formalize documentation ownership: Product defines documentation requirements in Jira ticket exit criteria (e.g., docs suitable for blog post). Engineering delivers content meeting those criteria. Product or Marketing (Lindsay) refines technical content into user-friendly format.

May 4

Everfox: require ~$2M front-loaded year-one payment, reject back-loaded $600k structure

Peter is requiring a large upfront payment ($2M floor with the proposal team; $4-6M float with Greg) for the new Everfox custom work (legacy CPU support, custom desktop) and rejecting the back-loaded $600k year-one structure. The $20M/10-year deal will be restructured to front-load payments, potentially by reducing total contract value if needed. CIQ will not absorb non-reusable engineering work without immediate funding.

May 4

Empower Nathan to defer Hassan secure-boot working session if engineering not ready

Apr 28 morning, Nathan flagged in #google-partnership-governance that he was not prepared for the Hassan working session that afternoon. Peter (at IAG, unable to attend) DMed Nathan: Youll be the senior guy in the room. If we arent ready for it tell Kelly we arent ready and to push it back. Brady and Kelly both signaled flexibility; the team coordinated and chose to proceed with a working-meeting framing. Peter closed the channel thread with Thank you all.

Apr 29

Assign Justin (not Nathan) ownership of Binarly engineering relationship

When Brady asked via DM whether Nathan or Justin should own the Binarly engineering relationship from CIQ side, Peter answered More Justin.

Apr 29

Defer ARM64 Pro Hardened build until Core42 commits — group decision Peter endorsed

In Apr 26 Sovereign AI response review meetings, the team — with Peter participating — decided the response language to Core42 will acknowledge that Pro Hardened on ARM64 (and FIPS-143 ARM certification) is contingent on a client commitment, not unilateral CIQ investment. ARM64 build estimated weeks not months once committed; FIPS-143 ARM is ~$200k / 4-6 months and gates on a deal commitment. Peter explicitly told the room: "We are going to need Nathan to say when. I am not going to be able to say on this call."

Apr 27

Quality initiatives must be ticketed visible work, prioritized by Product

In the Brian/Brady weekly sync, Peter reinforced that quality cannot live as implicit expectations — Product must define and prioritize quality initiatives as explicit tickets that compete for resources against feature work. Engineering will only prioritize what is tracked. Companion frame: Exit Criteria are the product promise (Product owns, Engineering can challenge via debate); QA is delivery validation, split between Engineering (general releases) and Ryan's org (customer-specific fixes in mirrored environments). Brady to split test automation from build automation into a high-priority CI/CD ticket. Peter to verify with Justin that the build process at minimum runs a boot test.

Apr 18

Core42: pivot from Fuzzball sale to full-stack compliance partnership

After the Core42 Tech Dive Part 2 surfaced Core42 wants a single OS vendor for their full UAE compliance stack (NIST 800-53, BIS, IDAM, physical security) across three EOY-2026 GPU clusters, Peter immediately convened an internal Impromptu Zoom to reposition the opportunity. CIQ will propose a comprehensive partnership framing CIQ as the only group that can provide all requirements, with RLC Pro Hardened + Fuzzball + Ascender as the core stack and partners filling the remaining ~20%. Consultative play: CIQ will advise Core42 on which requirements in Eric Grundstrom's doc would cause unacceptable performance degradation vs. which can be met. Nathan to draft the proposal doc by EOD Saturday so CIQ can deliver an answer by Monday.

Apr 18

Delivered Jira Hygiene Mandate to Engineering

In Engineering Weekly Sync, mandated immediate improvement in Jira hygiene after presenting 3.5 months of data showing >50% of tickets updated after their due date (most slips 2-4 weeks). Prioritized communication over speed — proactive updates required, aggressive initial targets (20-30% confidence) acceptable. Directed Chris Baek to add a 'blocked reason' field to Jira for stakeholder visibility.

Apr 17

Delivered Jira Hygiene Mandate to Engineering

Apr 15

Escalated Engineering Estimation Accountability — 58% Miss Rate

Identified that 58% of engineering estimates are being missed, with most date changes occurring after the target date. Declared this unacceptable and directed Brady to present this data at the next Engineering Weekly (Apr 14). Peter committed to personally attending to ensure accountability and a clear plan to fix the process.

Apr 11

Reinforced Product Owns Exit Criteria — Engineering Cannot Unilaterally Remove Requirements

Directed Brady and Brian that Product defines the 'what' and the 'when' while Engineering owns the 'how'. Engineering cannot unilaterally remove requirements from exit criteria. The correct response when a requirement is challenged is 'When can you deliver it?' not to debate or remove it. Forwarded the meeting recording to Bjorn and Chris Baek to align them on this prod/eng interface vision.

Apr 11

Defended Global Prioritization Model with Per-Team Computed Views

Convinced Greg that product prioritization must remain a single global list, not grouped by team. Agreed to add a computed property showing priority within each team for visibility. Fuzzball was reprioritized into top 20 in Exec meeting; Greg's remaining concern about Fuzzball not being high enough was resolved via the global+computed-property approach.

Apr 11

Reinforced Product Ownership of Exit Criteria

Engineering unilaterally removed the NVIDIA CUDA toolkit requirement from RLC Pro 9.6 LTS exit criteria, citing lack of automation. Peter clarified in the Brian/Brady sync that Product owns exit criteria and prioritization, Engineering owns the solution and date. When a requirement is challenged, Product asks When can you deliver it - not whether to include it.

Apr 10

Google Meeting Communication Coaching for Brady/Nathan

Directed Brady and Nathan on exactly how to communicate during the Google GDC follow-up call — present CIQ as calm, capable, and dedicated; don't volunteer unnecessary details; distinguish technical infeasibility from resource constraints. Personally bookended the engineering meeting with success criteria. Chose to keep GDC post-mortem attribution under Peter's name rather than crediting others.

Apr 9

Value Driver Consolidation from ~50 to ~3 Core Drivers

Peter demanded that the current list of ~50 'value drivers' be reduced to ~3 core, company-wide drivers that articulate CIQ's mission and differentiation. Called the current list a 'shotgun approach' and 'pile of stuff' that prevents focus. Test: if a product's value pillars cannot be tied to these core drivers, its strategic value to CIQ should be re-evaluated. Also requested a 1-year product vision for RLCAI/RLCH from Brian Dawson.

Apr 8

Taking Personal Lead on All GDC Communication for Next Month

Peter decided to personally lead ALL Google GDC communication for the next month, replacing the current multi-voice approach. New framing: 'we are technically capable; let's discuss the contract' instead of 'we can do it if you pay us.' All GDC work must be categorized into two buckets: work CIQ would do anyway (GDC accelerates it) vs work done only for GDC.

Apr 8

FIPS 6.18 Option 2 Engineering Kickoff

After Manu at Google did not respond to the relationship reset email sent Sunday, Peter escalated the FIPS proposal to Tissa via Kelly. Tissa authorized CIQ to proceed. Peter then directed Nathan to begin engineering work on Option 2 (faster timing path) while awaiting the Atsec contract. Engineering was held in reserve until external confirmations landed to avoid thrashing.

Apr 7

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.

Mar 13

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.

Mar 13

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.

Mar 11

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.

Mar 4

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.

Mar 3

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.

Feb 25

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.'

Feb 17

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.

Feb 12

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.

Feb 11

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.

Feb 11

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.

Feb 8

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.

Feb 6

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.

Feb 6

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.

Feb 4

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.

Jan 31

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.

Jan 29

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.

Jan 28

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.

Jan 28

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.

Jan 28

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.

Jan 26

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.

Jan 24

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.

Jan 23

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.

Jan 23

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.

Jan 22

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.

Jan 15

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.

Jan 14

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.

Jan 12

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.

Jan 12

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.

Dec 31

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).

Dec 29

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).

Dec 24

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.

Dec 24

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.

Dec 24

RLC 9.7 Launch Path Decision

Participated in RLC 9.7 Launch planning meeting to decide path forward on release and rework priorities.

Dec 19