Dieter

Dec 24, 2025 - Aug 18, 2026

17

Decisions

0

Active Todos

11

Patterns

Decisions (17)

Ask Greg to take Peter off the RESF directive so it reads as CEO-to-RESF instead of CEO-correcting-his-CTO - and pair it with a standing Lee status cadence

In the 2026-08-18 C-Suite Sync, Greg proposed DMing Peter, Dieter, Lee and possibly Brian to reiterate that more CIQ people need to be involved and that things need to move faster on the RESF side. Peter agreed to the substance but asked to be removed from the recipient list: So yes, but play this game with me. I think if you send that DM to the list of people you said, which includes me, and now I ask myself how I can perceive that from Brian perspective. I can perceive it as Greg telling his employee, Peter, to involve more people, and you are just notifying Brian that Peter has been told. If I am not on the email, and it is just going to Brian and Lee and Dieter, do you see what I am saying? I think you can speak really differently. He asked instead for a copy sent separately - I would just send it directly to them and then send me a copy of it just so I know exactly what you said - and suggested Greg tell them he expects Peter to be receptive to anything they ask. Separately Peter asked Greg to secure a standing status cadence with Lee, explaining that Lee is the one with the broad overview but does not work for Peter in this capacity, whereas Dieter will supply status on request. Greg agreed to have Sarah set up a weekly or biweekly Peter-Lee meeting, and Peter accepted.

Aug 18
strategy

Refuse to debate the cause of the Rocky download reversal until the metric itself is validated - either it is the number we track and it warrants attention, or we track a different one

Ryan Smith sent Peter a note that Rocky usage via Fedora DNF count-me stats had reversed for the first time since RESF started, correlating with Alma rise, and that Brian Clemens attributed it mainly to Neil and Lewis leaving with Lewis publicly promoting Alma since. Peter posted the whole note to #distinguished-leaders on 2026-08-18 flagged for the next morning meeting, and rejected the attribution: I do not buy that caused 250k less downloads of Rocky Linux. Something smells funny there. When Greg asked for his gut feeling, Peter declined to give one on causation and reframed the agenda instead: What I want to talk about is whether we believe the number is the number we should be looking at. If we do, then I think it warrants attention. If it does not, then I want us tracking a different numbers. In the C-Suite Sync the same morning he repeated the magnitude objection to Greg and named where the analytics capability should sit - that is what Dieter should plug it into.

Aug 18
strategy

Dieter Middle East trip proceeds; Peter shifts to off-loading other stress vectors

After the Nathan 1:1 5/21 raised the Middle East trip as a stress concern, Peter and Bjorn aligned: the trip business value holds, Dieter ships. The landed decision is upstream — Peter recalibrates his support for Dieter to be much more sensitive to overload signals and actively off-loads other stress vectors (release pressure framing, recognition, vacation enforcement post-release, board-proposal ghostwriting timing) so the Middle East trip is the one stressor, not stacked on top of others.

May 26
people

Dieter wellness three-layer intervention — trip offer + Mattermost kudos + RESF governance reform

Triggered by Nathan flagging Dieters stress (release delays + planned Middle East trip), Peter committed to a three-part response: (1) Trip cancellation offer — confirm trip status with Bjorn first, then directly ask Dieter if cancelling helps reduce his stress. (2) Community recognition — post in RESF Mattermost thanking community for 9.2/10.8 release efforts, coordinated with Nathan via #hey-pete-look. (3) RESF governance reform — Nathan to draft governance proposals (term-based board and team-lead seats, monthly status reports from team leads to board) for Dieter to present. Also reframed how Dieters performance gets evaluated: from absolute targets to pre-Dieter vs post-Dieter comparison. Stack to take ownership of release sign-off so Dieter does not carry that burden.

May 21
people

Manage Max situation — protect privacy, halt org outreach, decline his calendar

Peter is actively shielding Max Spevack from organizational pressure during a personal/private situation. Directed Sarah to access Max's calendar and decline all his meetings for the week, told Ryan to stand down ("No reaching out"), told Nathan to stand down ("worst thing Ryan can do is involve himself"), declined Mariah's offer to use Max's emergency contact ("let's give it a little more time"). Committed to talk with Max himself early this week.

Apr 27
people

Escalated Dieter/RASF urgency to Greg publicly — secured EOW commitment

Publicly escalated Dieters stress and lack of RESF authority in #distinguished-leaders (When are we actioning Dieter? Hes super stressed and feeling unsupported), forcing Greg to commit End of week is my target on finalizing the RASF.

Apr 17
people

Sensitive Decision

Sensitive

RESF Restructure - Confirmed Proceeding Despite Greg's Hesitation

Confirmed CIQ should proceed with the Dieter RESF restructure plan, overriding Greg's expressed concern that the restructure doc might disrupt RESF's current momentum under Leigh. Bjorn aligned with Peter. Greg deferred rather than blocking.

Apr 9
people

Empower Dieter as RESF Infrastructure Lead + Stock Grant

Peter decided to push Greg to give Dieter formal authority as RESF technical infrastructure lead, and approved a stock grant for Dieter with Bjorn's support to tie him more closely to CIQ.

Apr 4
people

Sensitive Decision

Sensitive

Committed to RESF day-of execution planning meeting next week

Committed in #internal-resf-escalation to organizing a meeting next week to build an execution plan for the RESF day-of lockdown. Directed Sarah to invite Nathan, Max, Justin, and Dieter. Bjorn is finishing messaging drafts this weekend, so technical execution planning must be ready to match the communication track.

Feb 27
operational

Approve Jason Rodriguez performance exit path

Approved Nathan's plan to tell Jason Rodriguez he's 'not meeting expectations' and create an exit path. A 1-month exit plan is acceptable if Jason agrees. Performance gaps include missed deadlines (shim review for Rocky 9 late, Rocky 7 review pending) and unshippable code (large PR unlikely to pass review).

Feb 20
people

Project Shackleton - RESF contingency infrastructure

Build a parallel mirror of all RESF infrastructure in AWS (Git repos, Koji, vault/pub, Mattermost history) with goal of restoring Rocky Linux builds within two weeks if Lewis triggers his kill switch. Everything built with CDK and Ansible for repeatable deployment.

Jan 30
technical

Accelerate Koji build system as RESF contingency

Emphasized urgency of having CIQ own build system mirroring RESF capabilities. Currently half of Nathan and Dieters time, targeting end of month. Requested visibility into milestones for board meeting prep.

Jan 14
strategy

Koji Build System Priority - RESF Risk Mitigation

Directed Nathan to prioritize Koji cluster standup with Dieter. Goal is to have independent build infrastructure in place so CIQ is not dependent on RESF. Asked for timeline if this became top priority, and indicated Dieter should reprioritize accordingly.

Jan 13
technical

Leadership 1:1s with Maple, Dieter, Andrew

Decision to begin regular 1-on-1s with Maple, Dieter, and Andrew (when onboarded) to build trust and ensure unified messaging.

Jan 6
people

RESF Infrastructure Independence - Technical Execution

Directed Nathan to mirror all RESF repositories and initiated build environment duplication. Created #internal-resf-escalation channel with strict confidentiality rules. Keeping technical circle small (Nathan, Max, Justin, Dieter) while moving quickly.

Dec 24
strategy

Related Patterns (11)

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.

175 occurrences67% success

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.

173 occurrences67% success

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.

172 occurrences78% success

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.

169 occurrences78% success

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.

161 occurrences79% success

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.

159 occurrences77% success

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.

156 occurrences77% success

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.

137 occurrences65% success

Reclassify to Route - Decide Who Owns It, Then Give a Criterion Not a Verdict

When a question arrives at Peter framed in one domain, he often does not answer it in that framing. He reclassifies it into the domain that actually governs the outcome, which relocates ownership to whoever owns that lane, and then hands down a decision criterion rather than a verdict. The reclassification IS the decision - it determines who decides. He does this rather than adjudicating on the merits himself, even when he was explicitly cc-ed and even when a direct report challenges him on the substance.

42 occurrences80% success

Route Non-Differentiating FTE Classes to Partners

When CIQ would otherwise need to staff a function whose work does not differentiate the company — compliance bureaucracy, audit/cert paperwork, ongoing regulatory attestation, etc. — Peter routes the load to a partner who already owns adjacent capability rather than adding the FTE class internally. Org-shape decision dressed as a partnership decision.

22 occurrences67% success

Metrics Must Follow Strategy

When shifting team priorities or strategic direction, the communication alone will not drive behavior change. Engineers may acknowledge the new direction but continue existing behavior patterns without clear, explicit metrics holding them accountable.

14 occurrences50% success