Jamin
Jan 30, 2026 - Oct 1, 2026
7
Decisions
0
Active Todos
12
Patterns
Decisions (7)
Everyone owns their AI spend - no gates or guardrails, but unaware spending is unacceptable
At the AI Committee, the spend dashboard showed Jamin at roughly 33-39k for September. Peter said he will not put gates or guardrails on AI usage, but every person at the company (not just engineers) must know their own spend, the caps and overage thresholds of the tools they use, and treat token spend as part of their cost to the company. A deliberate, informed overage is backed even if Peter would disagree with the math; blind spending is not. Michelle was approved to tell the whole company this is on each person. Ryan 1k overage notification line accepted as reasonable; only Jamin, Sultan and Justin warrant an actual conversation.
Push speed-over-perfect down into the Justin org and ask him to produce a visible failure that goes unpunished
Peter opened the Justin 1:1 by reconstructing his own discomfort with how he had handled pushback after a talk on AI usage - the pushback was about corner cases, and Peter realised his own answer had been weak. He then asked Justin to reiterate the speed-over-perfection mantra to his people, and escalated the ask: go fast enough that a real mistake happens, so Peter can visibly decline to punish it. He paired this with a demand for QA automation investment rather than manual QA, and set up a next-week whiteboard exercise: what would have to be true to double throughput, what breaks, and what does it cost to stop each breakage.
Hold the write-static-code guardrail at the 98 percent it actually buys - concede the escape case publicly and still refuse to mandate replacing third-party MCPs
At the 9/2 engineering all-hands Peter clarified the missive he had sent two weeks earlier about writing static code rather than pointing Claude at an MCP server. He gave the concrete failure it came from: someone stood up a Claude skill pointed straight at the HubSpot MCP server, and it deleted an org worth of data and 14 customers. The rule he wants: have the AI write Python or JavaScript, scope the token to exactly what that script needs, and let the skill know only that the script exists - not that the MCP server does. Jamin Collins pushed back hard and correctly - an over-helpful agent will eventually route around any tool that is not an actual guard, and once it learns it can, it will stop using the guard entirely. Peter conceded it in front of the whole org twice - he is right, he is completely right - and then held the line anyway: I do not think it is worth throwing out a pattern that works 98 percent of the time because of the 2 percent. If there is a better pattern you want to pitch, I am all for it. He named the tradeoff explicitly: the full fix is replacing each third-party MCP, which means an admin approval process per service, and I do not want to constrain our usage and our experimentation right now. Once we find that a certain set of tooling is really valuable, then it is worth investing in doing exactly that. He framed it as accepting a little bit of risk so that we can experiment as a team, and set the target as getting rid of the 100 percent failure case, not solving every edge case.
Approve Veeam-related kernel engineering headcount; run Sergei + Jamin referral in parallel
In Nathan 1:1, approved the Veeam-related kernel engineering headcount. Nathan to continue engaging Sergei despite initial salary concerns and to evaluate a new referral (former Twitter/EC2 database engineer with strong automation skills) as a parallel track.
Ryan to POC AI-driven Veeam image builder, gated on Justin-approved test suite
Ryan will POC an AI-driven image builder, starting with Veeam, that automates custom image builds, testing, and documentation. Hard gate: AI-generated images must pass a Justin-approved test suite to prevent hallucinations. Long-term vision: a 'Chipotle line' image configurator letting users compose custom, repeatable builds from validated components.
Override hiring freeze to hire Ben and Jamin for Linux engineering
Decided to bypass the company hiring freeze to bring on two key candidates: Ben (priority hire, competing with Anthropic offer) and Jamin (from Oracle, expensive but high-performing with strong ownership). Committed to sync with Mariah to clear headcount for both.
Trinity backfill for RLCAI/RLCH work, not maintenance
Use Trinitys backfill headcount to hire for RLCAI and RLCH work, not maintenance. Look for someone who can hold their own technically with Maple but will push AI adoption aggressively. Jamin identified as strong candidate - automation-first thinker, delivers and iterates, QA mindset.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Switch Instrument, Not Intensity
Applies when a message, rule or ask has already failed through the channel Peter is currently using - repeated advocacy that has not landed, coaching that produced defensiveness rather than improvement, exhortation that did not change behaviour, or a rule that keeps losing case by case. His response is never to restate the same thing more forcefully. He changes the instrument and usually names the switch out loud. Mined from 7 independent observations between 2026-01-06 and 2026-08-21.
Time Over Cost
Peter treats elapsed time as the scarce quantity and money as the abundant one, and will spend cash to buy schedule, clarity or optionality. Notable because he named it himself as a transferable principle on 2026-05-21 and coached the lens explicitly to a direct report, which is rare - most of his patterns are inferred rather than stated. It generalises past procurement: he will pay to convert an ambiguous dispute into a binary one, remove cost as a variable entirely when a priority has executive visibility, and reason about a commitment in terms of lead time rather than budget. Mined from 5 independent observations between 2026-02-01 and 2026-09-11.
Constrain the Mechanism, Not the Access
When AI or automation raises a governance concern, Peter does not restrict who or what may reach the data. He constrains HOW the reach happens, so the pathway becomes auditable and deterministic. The failure mode he designs against is non-determinism, not leakage - a wrong filter in inspectable static code is a bug you fix once, while a model that sometimes pulls the wrong field is an unbounded, unauditable liability. He will therefore accept imperfect filtering and eventual leakage as the price of adoption speed, but will not accept a non-inspectable pathway.