Gregory Kurtzer
May 5, 2026 - Sep 3, 2026
15
Decisions
0
Active Todos
12
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (15)
Sensitive Decision
Sensitive Decision
Sensitive Decision
Sensitive Decision
Restate every RESF request as a request to CIQ rather than to Nathan - publish the secure-boot ask to all of Linux Engineering so someone else can raise a hand
Nathan reported that Dieter had asked him explicitly to help with a secure boot POC, and that he would demo it to Sharif, Scott and Dieter on Monday, building it on CIQ hardware because CIQ needs it too. Peter approved the substance and re-cut the framing: let me tweak things ever so slightly to the RESF has asked CIQ to do this, not Nathan. It may be Nathan who is doing it, but the ask should be published in Slack to all of Linux Engineering - the RESF has asked for help with secure boot, I know secure boot, so I am sitting down with them Monday, and if anybody else is interested in understanding how this works or how they can plug into that world, here is the opening. Peter said chances are it is nobody and everyone just pats Nathan on the back, but he wants to buy the chance that one person wakes up and goes that is interesting. He tied it to the wider problem: the RESF needs to stop being five or six people who think it is their clubhouse, and Nathan should be willing to say this contributor should get a structure and a title inside the RESF. In the Steve Wallace 1:1 the same day he committed to pressing Dieter on the same point next week - nobody at the RESF is asking CIQ for things directly, and both Nathan and Steve orgs have resources available.
Sensitive Decision
Sensitive Decision
Approve the Tim Pepper consulting proposal, then push back on the absence of a standard contracting process rather than hand-roll the SOW
Greg forwarded Tim Peppers consulting proposal to Peter on 7/21 with apologies for the latency, and Peter approved it flatly the same afternoon - I am good with this - without asking cost, scope, or management in the thread. He forwarded it to Sarah on 7/23 to get it moving. On 7/24 when Sarah relayed that Gregs next step was for Peter to follow through with the contract, Peter declined to hand-roll it and asked where the standard process was. Sarahs answer confirmed there is not a reliable one - CIQ has done things fast and not by the book with other people, case by case - and she took an action to check with HR.
Clear Greg to proceed on the open-source AI-training-data initiative with no CTO gate
On the morning of 7/24 Greg told Peter by DM that the conference had reinforced for him that an open source source of AI training data is one of the most important things needed right now and that he has to hurry. Peter cleared him within about 24 seconds and made a point of saying the analysis was already done: get on it, I have been thinking about it and I do not have any concerns. Greg replied On it. Peter attached no metrics, no owner, and no scoping ask - he cleared a lane rather than taking the work.
Block the AI-cost workstream on complete per-individual measurement before any optimization - so each persons correct plan can be determined
In the 7/23 Steve Wallace 1:1 Steve reported several threads coming out of Mondays AI meeting: efficiency coaching for heavy users, model-switching guidance, and usage reporting to department heads. Peter cut across all of it and set a sequencing requirement - first get a dashboard that shows every individual in the company, including himself. His evidence was his own absence from it: he shows as zero on every cost dashboard despite Claude running 8 to 10 hours a day, with CIQ apparently paying around 200 dollars a month for him. He rejected the manager-level rollup as a starting point and rejected pushing justification down to department heads. All of the costs, not just some of them.
Sensitive Decision
Sensitive Decision
Set kernel-independence north star; justify RESF-CIQ pipeline convergence investment as the path to it
In the C-Suite Sync, after conceding to Bjorn that CIQ must keep racing Red Hat on critical CVEs today (customer parity is a non-negotiable sales requirement for Citadel, Rakuten, Veeam), Peter named an explicit north star: a future where CIQ is far less tightly bound to the Red Hat kernel via an opinionated, upstream-first posture. He validated with Greg and Bjorn that this is a real future option, then framed the present-day decision as investing now in the RESF and CIQ pipeline and tooling convergence as the infrastructure that makes the north star reachable later. He was explicit that this changes nothing for customers today.
Peter delivers Reno QBR C-suite intro Thursday — covering Bjorn late arrival
Peter will deliver the C-suite intro at Reno QBR Thursday morning, since Bjorn arrives Thursday afternoon. Peter arrives 8:45 AM Thursday. Greg travels to Houston with Adam for a 1 PM Thursday sales meeting.
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.
Related Patterns (12)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Purpose Is the Decision Procedure
When someone asks how a process, board, tool or artifact should handle their specific case, Peter refuses to answer on the askers terms. He re-derives the answer from what the artifact is for, states that purpose as the only decision procedure, and lets the answer fall out. Anything found to be serving a second purpose is deleted rather than debated. Tools and views are explicitly subordinate to definitions. He will accept that the askers real problem is simply not solved by this artifact rather than widen the artifact to cover it.
Demonstrate the Standard, Then Collect It
When a new leadership expectation has to land across multiple orgs, Peter does not write a spec. He runs a live exemplar in public with the strongest performer first, says openly that the ordering was deliberate, keeps the form of the deliverable open so the ask stays about the thinking rather than the artifact, lets the delta be self-evident to the people who will have to close it, and then collects the same from everyone else on a named rotation. He prefers showing imperfect work now over polished work later.
Redesign Conditions Over Policing Symptoms
When a direct report names a vulnerability and proposes surveillance-style verification mechanisms (breathalyzers, daily check-ins, monitoring rituals), Peter accepts the disclosure but pushes back on the surveillance model. Treats the verification proposal as a signal that the underlying environment needs redesign — and offers to change the conditions that produced the vulnerability rather than instrument the symptom. Costs Peter optionality (e.g., committing to broker work-hour expectations directly with the partner/spouse) — the asymmetry signals genuine retention vs transactional.