Jonathan
Dec 29, 2025 - Aug 21, 2026
26
Decisions
0
Active Todos
10
Patterns
Decisions (26)
Extend abort-the-loop authority from the hiring manager down to every individual interviewer - anybody can pull the ripcord alone, without a debrief or consensus
At the close of the Friday roundtable the hiring manager mentioned that he already pulls candidates before they reach a debrief, so the panel will not see a roundtable for everyone they interview. Peter extended that authority downward rather than leaving it with the manager. He said he is a huge believer, we are a small team, everybody on this call is a super smart individual, and he is really comfortable with anybody just pulling the ripcord on an interview and saying this one is not moving on. He added that in past environments he was fine with someone standing up and walking a candidate out mid-loop on the grounds of not wasting anybody else time. He explicitly declined to impose it - the hiring manager might not be comfortable with it and Peter said he would leave that up to him. The hiring manager then agreed, saying at this stage in the game he was happy to do that. The exchange happened immediately after a debrief in which the panel had spent roughly twenty minutes on a candidate they all ended up rejecting, and after two of them had traded stories about aborted loops at a previous employer.
Re-anchor the no-more-Amazon-blood rule on the deficit it was actually naming - what the org is short of is people who have had a startup collapse under them, not people with different opinions about Linux
Across the Friday roundtable and the Nathan 1:1 Peter restated a hiring rule he had previously given as no more Amazon blood. In the roundtable he opened on the first candidate by saying he almost wanted to disqualify him purely on years of Amazon experience, that it has become absolutely critical to get a broader set of blood into the organization, and conceded that since stating the rule he has let two more people in and gets why. He then corrected Nathan reading of it - it is not about bad Amazon, it is that there is so much Amazon that there is not enough discussion about how we solve problems. In the 1:1 he specified it precisely: the thing he is pushing on is how you internalize the risk of not moving quickly. At Amazon the cost of slowness is somebody misses a promotion or a bonus; at CIQ the company goes under. He said Nathan is not less aggressive because of ability but because he has not had a startup collapse underneath him, and that what it boils down to is a few more people in your org that just have experience at startups. He closed by saying explicitly he is not shooting for differences in how people think about Linux - it is differences in work experience.
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.
Hire Hailey Mothershead without reservation, and take John Paul as a qualified yes with a standing instruction not to chase him if he declines
At the Aug 12 kernel round table Peter gave two very different verdicts. On Hailey he was unreserved - I would hire her today, I thought she was smart, I thought she was inquisitive, I think she will work incredibly well with the team - and said that at a smaller company he would have called Brianne right after the interview and not let her leave the building without papers in front of her. He named his one real concern, a complete lack of C experience, and dismissed it as learnable, and flagged that she will find CIQ feedback culture blunt. On John Paul he deferred entirely to the technical panel, said he did not enjoy the interactions, did not believe JP is interested in what CIQ is doing, agreed with Shreeya read that they are getting roughly a year, and said he would not block a consensus yes. He then added the operative instruction: if we make an offer to him and he does not accept, let us not kill ourselves to make it work out. He closed the meeting with I know this team has felt pressured. I do not want this pressure to bring in the wrong person.
Sensitive Decision
Gate Rakuten 8.6 / RT-kernel support work on a signed 1.6 to 1.8M expansion that funds dedicated headcount
Decided that the risky, currently unsupportable Rakuten 8.6 / RT-kernel support work will either not be done at all or only be delivered tied to a signed contract expansion in the 1.6 to 1.8M range that funds dedicated Rakuten headcount on CIQ side. The bar is enough to cover roughly two dedicated engineers, not an arbitrary large number. Peter forwarded the engineering teams infrastructure objections to Bjorn to arm the customer conversation.
Repair the mis-framed Engineering All-Hands - hold a PIC/Fuzzball follow-up and proactively notify the slighted PIC team
After Jonathan Anderson and others read the recent State of Linux session as the Engineering All-Hands - leaving the PIC team feeling ignored - Peter diagnosed it as a framing/naming failure (Linux-only, Wolford not on it, no Fuzzball content) and directed the fix: a PIC/Fuzzball-focused follow-up session in the next few weeks, Baek to own the Fuzzball angle, and the PIC team to be told now that it is coming because yesterday was bad for them - they felt completely ignored.
Accepted CLK 6.18 delay to March 31
Approved Jonathan Maple's request to slip CLK 6.18 from March 27 to March 31, due to kernel source-git conversion process. Positively reinforced Maple's proactive escalation.
Established Fuzzball AI validation process
Committed to validating Greg's Fuzzball AI marketing claims before they go external. New process: Greg/Jonathan provides desired story, Peter documents engineering tests required, engineering validates and gives thumbs-up/down. HumanX conference in 2 weeks is the forcing function.
Saudi training — Confirmed Dieter for May 5-6 Linux training program
Confirmed Jonathan Dieter as the trainer for Saudi Arabia Linux training program (May 5-6). Discussed in Dieter 1:1 and relayed confirmation to Adam Jackson. Pending security review.
RESF — Orchestrated demand-pull approach for CIQ help
Directed that CIQ help should come through RESF team requests (especially Taylor/Sherif) rather than being imposed from above. Reinforced 'CIQ will help if you ask' messaging through Greg and Leigh. Wants RESF work driven like a project with visibility into requests.
RESF — Committed CIQ resources (Dieter/Nathan) and proposed tech lead structure
Committed Dieter and Nathan to near-full-time RESF work. Proposed Dieter as RESF tech lead reporting to Peter for ~1 year. Told Leigh both are available immediately (Dieter now, Nathan when back from vacation). Scheduled Tuesday alignment meeting with Greg/Bjorn/Max to formalize structure and authority. Briefed Max on strategy: unified front with Bjorn, carrots and sticks approach for Greg meeting.
Sensitive Decision
RESF Monday Cutover — Finalized 3 PM PT Execution Plan
Finalized the RESF infrastructure cutover plan for Monday March 16 at 3 PM PT, including DNS NS record flip, AWS VPC firewalling, account disabling (Lewis, Neal), and security audit — accepting up to 24 hours of DNS-related downtime.
RESF Operational Security — Compartmentalize Until Board Action
Directed that Brian must not be told anything until after the RESF board notification. Emphasized extreme caution about leaks to Lewis. Approved Joseph being read into the initiative but warned about leak risk. Sequenced information flow: board action first, then notifications, then credential recovery.
Sensitive Decision
Toyota POC — No Hotfix, Demo MPI and PBS Separately
Decided NOT to rush a hotfix for Toyota's urgent out-of-scope MPI-via-PBS request before their Thursday director meeting. Team will demo MPI and PBS as separate working components, explain the integration bug is known, and commit to fix in ~1 week by the March 17 Reno meeting.
Considering transition period policy for departures
Agreed to consider a policy change where departing staff could be offered a choice: immediate exit or a paid transition period (e.g., 2 weeks) for a clean handoff. This came from Maple feedback about Trinity terminations creating project handoff gaps.
Approved proceeding with x86 RESF shadow infrastructure first
Approved Jonathan Dieter proceeding with the RESF shadow infrastructure build using x86 architecture first, deferring non-x86 builders (S390X, RISC-V, PPC64LE) to address later. The 4-week MVP timeline is feasible for x86.
Committed to more balanced team communications after Dieter feedback
After receiving feedback from Jonathan Dieter that team communication is often perceived as negative, and that the Trinity termination created a one mistake and youre out perception, committed to sending more balanced messages to engineering.
Product Roadmap Overload - Challenge Product on Prioritization
Directed Chris Wolford to push back on Product for a clear separation of critical path vs nice-to-have items in the H1 roadmap. Current roadmap is overloaded and risks critical path items.
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.
Commitment to Present Engineering-to-GTM Messaging Framework
Committed to presenting a framework next week that ties engineering work to changes in market state and corresponding go-to-market messaging. Triggered by Fuzzball Service Endpoints press release that was 98% HPC-focused, missing the critical AI angle despite AI being the strategic priority.
Build Environment Contingency Prioritized
Aligned with Nathan that his top priority is secretly building a full build environment (Koji, Pungie) to create a concrete recovery plan in response to potential RESF sabotage threat.
Fuzzball SaaS - Defer Pending Technical Alignment
Rather than making a call on Fuzzball SaaS viability concerns raised by Chris Wolford, directed Chris to align with Jonathan (who has pitched cloud-native ideas) to form a unified stance. If they reach opposing conclusions, escalate to Peter. H1 planning docs to proceed with caveat that SaaS initiative is pending alignment.
Related Patterns (10)
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.
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.