Kelly
Jan 12, 2026 - Aug 28, 2026
36
Decisions
0
Active Todos
11
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (36)
Attack the live-patching gap through Google co-development as a paid deliverable while keeping the req open - buy the timeline, do not just wait for the hire
In the 2026-08-25 Exec Product Prioritization session Peter named kernel live patching as his single biggest capability gap, and said he does not need more heads beyond the requisitions already open to deliver the top of the board - with live patching the exception. Rather than waiting on that hire, he took a 5:15pm sync with Tissa Senevirathne at Google the same day, scoped specifically to whether Google can accelerate the live-patching timeline and whether it can be added as another paid deliverable to the existing engagement. He described the approach to Chris Baek and Bjorn Hovland as throwing co-development options at the wall to see what sticks. The Rex requisition stays open, so this is an additional path rather than a substitute for the hire.
Refuse to act on the AI spend number until it is decomposed - one-time hardware out, recurring API in - then treat the remainder as usage discipline rather than a spend cap
Steve Wallace raised rising AI costs at the end of the Aug 18 Engineering Weekly Sync. Peter did not accept the number as presented. He said the AI costs finance is counting include one-time purchases like the giant chassis just bought from NVIDIA for the 200s, and: I do not want to get hung up on one-time costs. I care way more about the recurring cloud costs and making sure people are being smart there. He set a meeting with finance for Thursday in LA to decompose it, and named what the response will be once the number is clean: model-tier discipline (teaching people not to do every single thing with Fable and Opus - Sonnet is still there for a reason and still really good at some things), possibly monthly per-person budgets, and a quality bar on AI-assisted work. Nathan raised that copy-pasting a prompt in and the answer out adds no value; Peter closed it with: we should be holding each other accountable and not accepting work at that bar.
Override your own teams stated intent to delete the RL 8.6 source tree, and apologize to Google directly rather than defend the position
Tissa Senevirathne emailed Kelly Hall on Jul 30 saying CIQ had informed Google it wanted to delete the RL 8.6 OS and kernel source tree, and asked that it be preserved for contractual traceability and auditability. Peter replied to Tissa the next morning without consulting his team first: I do not know why my team informed you they wanted to delete that tree. I apologize. There is little cost associated with us keeping it live. I hope it was presented as a discussion, not as CIQ is doing this. I will dig in with them to understand what was motivating that, but your request is more than reasonable. In parallel he told Nathan in DM: we cannot shut this down right now, it does not cost us to leave it up except for a few dollars, and pressed for the reason - but why would we need to delete it? I do not want to do anything at all to rock the boat with them right now unless we need to. He named the underlying stake: I want to make sure we have the actual contracts completely signed in blood, and pushed back on the suspected motive - I do not want to do anything that they are nervous about right now, especially if the reason is that its existence makes our metrics look bad.
Google ELTS: pay or I stop the work - and CIQ eats the disputed 150k out of the existing discount to remove the excuse
In the 7/28 CIQ ELTS payment discussion with Google (Madhu, Alyssa, Arun, Katur and Kelly Hall), Peter went in deliberately hot and said so. Madhu was trying to hold Kelly to account for who made a technical decision back in February, with the implication that if CIQ made it Google would not pay for work since then. Peter refused the premise - these are technical decisions, they get made by the team, they get recorded by your people as the decisions of the consolidated team, and then we move forward - and then removed the money as an obstacle by offering to absorb it against an existing concession: I gave you a 250,000 dollar discount over here, so you are bitching about 150,000. I will shake your hand right now that that is on us. That 250,000 discount just turned into a 100,000 discount. With the excuse gone he put the actual question: are we getting paid or are we not getting paid, and if we are not getting paid I am taking my toys and going home. Madhus boss and others stopped the meeting and committed to closing it out by the next day. The call also ended abruptly, which Peter read as someone telling Madhu to stand down.
Reclassify the GDC MIP-listing disclosure question as a contract-timing call and route it to Kelly Hall with a decision criterion
On 7/23 Brady Dibble escalated to Peter, Bjorn, and Kelly that CIQ still had not told GDC the 8/8 MIP listing was at risk because the ESV certificate had not arrived from NIST - and that atsec had flagged NIST not asking for review or comment, typically meaning they had not reached the certificate. Justin Haynes pushed back directly with why would we not let them know. Peter did not answer the disclosure question. He assigned it: this is a Kelly Hall call, and supplied the criterion - whatever path is most likely to get a contract signed in the next couple of days. The thread resolved as non-disclosure, with Bjorn stating he would not flag it and Justin later confirming they did not bring it up and neither did we.
Release the Google 6.18 build; hold the line on future deliverables until Google resolves the LTS question
On 7/22 Peter lifted his own 7/21 hold on the Google/GDC 6.18 image. He connected with Bjorn first, then told Justin Haynes in #google-partnership-governance and in DM to Kelly Hall: give Google the build. He emailed Tissa Senevirathne at Google the same morning confirming the release, restating a firm stance that the LTS work has already been provided to Google, and stripping Mahdu and Alyssa off the thread. He paired the release with an explicit condition: future deliverables are held until Google sorts out the LTS commitment.
Pull the business side (Kelly) into the FIPS 6.18 CAVP-retrigger vs fork call
Justin flagged that upstream 6.18 LT landed hundreds of CVEs/fixes touching the crypto code being FIPS-certified, forcing a choice between re-triggering CAVP (risking the 8/8 Google delivery) or forking/reverting the kernel (a growing maintenance burden). Justin was inclined to retrigger CAVP and risk the timeline. Peter did not make the technical call himself - he decided the business side must be convened, with Kelly Hall involved, because the choice puts the Google 8/8 delivery at risk.
Hold the Google 6.18 image as contract leverage - nothing ships to Google without Peter say-so
Both 6.18 kernels (default and minimal) were built and validated by 7/17, but Peter instituted a delivery-control gate: no kernels go to Google without his explicit say-so, and delivery-timing questions route to Kelly Hall. The build is done; the only remaining gate is contractual, so CIQ holds the finished image as leverage until GDC signs and resolves the outstanding payment. The ultimate release decision Peter deferred to Bjorn and Kelly.
Support Nathan CVE-first prioritization over the Google minimal-kernel delivery; own the customer comms
Nathan flagged that in-flight critical local-privilege-escalation CVEs collided with the committed 6.18 minimal-kernel delivery to Google and called for CVE remediation to come first. Peter backed that call rather than making it: agreed to a bounded slip (no more than a week, not three), was comfortable asking the team to work a weekend to verify already-built patches, and took personal ownership of communicating the slip to Google - framed as value-add (surface only the CVEs Google benefits from), not an apology. Peter wrote and sent the explanatory email to Tissa and the Google team the same day.
Rippling Asset Mgmt — time over cost; pay full $18k for end-of-June over $15k for December
The Rippling Asset Management integration project was de-scoped to ~$15k from ~$18k. Peter decided the full-scope original at $18k is acceptable IF Rippling can deliver by end of June. Steve will get the timeline from Kelly Wall to inform the final decision. Explicit framing: time over cost. The principle is conditional — if Rippling slips on the end-of-June timeline, the math changes and $15k-for-December may be the right call.
Moody Citibank card hard cutoff 6/15 — force-action via past-tense framing after 9 months of soft asks
After Kelly Wall described 9 months of soft asks to Steve Moody to switch from the personal-history Citibank card to the Ramp card (forcing manual finance journal entries every month), Peter directed Kelly to send Moody a notice that the card has been disabled and will stop working on June 15. CC Steve Wallace. Phrase it past-tense (has been disabled) plus future-fact (stops working 6/15) — not request language. Peter explicitly affirmed his prior gate (Kelly checks with him before shut-offs) while greenlighting this one because Kelly is giving a month notice — the notice IS the legitimacy gate.
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.
Reframe Azure relationship — CIQ supports RLC, not all of RESF
Directed Justin to align with Kelly on Azure messaging, clarifying that CIQ supports its own RLC offering (not the entire RESF ecosystem). Protects Nathans team from unbounded support burden while preserving the January 2027 contract renewal opportunity.
Committed CVE categorization + kpatch estimates to Google by Monday
After Tissa agreed no one can answer Madhus blanket questions, committed CIQ to deliver a CVE-type classification table with kpatch coverage estimates by Monday. Reshaping an unanswerable request into a structured, defensible answer by category.
Google NEXT - Value-First Attendance Framework for Nathan
When Kelly asked if Nathan should attend Google NEXT (April 21-24), set a value-first framework: Nathan goes only if there's a concrete business objective. Pushed Kelly to define the business case rather than defaulting to sending people.
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.
FIPS Delivery Contingent on Google Commercial Commitment
Peter stated CIQ needs to make clear to Google soon that FIPS delivery depends on either getting a revenue ramp projection or a new contract. Google can't have the deliverable without the commercial commitment. This came after Bjorn reported Google's Madhu is delaying projection estimates and 'feels like they are trying to exert leverage.'
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.
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.
Google GDC Relationship Reset via CTO Email to Manu
Drafted and sent strategic email directly to Manu at Google Engineering, acknowledging communication disconnect, offering FIPS 6.18 acceleration at certification cost only (~$180k, CIQ absorbs NRE), directing shared git repo setup for co-development transparency, and requesting Google revenue ramp projections. Reviewed draft with Bjorn before sending; forwarded final to Max crediting his input.
Google FIPS 618 as Commercial Leverage
Peter decided to use FIPS 618 kernel as leverage to push Google toward a paid contract before committing CIQ to significant new engineering work like live patching.
Google Contract Engineering Justification
Directed Nathan Blackham to provide engineering cost breakdown for GDC work, and Kelly Hall to provide revenue numbers, building justification for higher pricing in Google contract renewal/expansion. Nathan confirmed ~$800K/yr cost for 1-2 engineers on GDC with zero profit, and CIQ actually spends more on GDC than GCE.
Google Deal — Engineering Owns Resource Projection
Directed that engineering (not finance/biz dev) should own projecting what the Google deal requires in terms of team size and capacity. Participated in Google Deal review meeting where consolidated $6M/yr development fee proposal was developed, including engineering guardrails (live patching scope limits, early renewal trigger). Deal structure: $6M dev fee for 5-7 senior engineers, uncapped variable usage fees (removing $1M cap), 15-25% margin on premium listings + MDF, early renewal trigger if scope exceeds funded team capacity.
Prioritize Google Exec Meeting — Adjust Reno Travel
Agreed to meet a confidential new Google executive (distinguished engineer from Google Cloud, came through Tissa) for Monday dinner or Thursday lunch. Thursday option requires returning from Reno Wednesday night. Directed Greg to cover Toyota in person on Wednesday if needed.
Unified Google Proposal — Present Combined GDC/GCE to Rohan
Aligned Kelly and Bjorn on presenting a unified GDC/GCE proposal to Rohan (Google senior director) instead of negotiating separately. Reframing from pro-serve/ticket model to value-driven partnership with a large fixed annual fee ($8-9M).
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.'
Committed to creating CVE remediation value driver for GTM
Committed to creating a value driver for CVE remediation work after learning that remediation volume jumped from 1 to 86 per week. Timeline is ~2 months to develop the story after validating the new process is sustainable.
Google Partnership Strategy - Build Rapport with Tissa
Decided to shift the Google contract renegotiation strategy from confrontational to collaborative. Peter will personally meet with Tissa (Google) to build rapport and empathy, framing CIQ's financial pain as a shared problem to solve together. Greg will be excluded from this meeting to ensure a non-antagonistic conversation.
COGS data access unblocked for Ryan - Bjorn to grant via Kelly
Convened Bjorn and Ryan to resolve Ryans 6-month block on accessing official COGS data. Ryan had been forced to recreate the data independently, which conflicted with Bjorns H1 directive to use a single official source. Bjorn agreed immediately and will email Kelly Marlin today to grant Ryan full access.
Google TDX Work - Funding Requirement
Rejected doing Google TDX work if it only means 2-3 months of paid engineering time. Set requirement that the work must add headcount to CIQ to be worth pursuing - otherwise CIQ is just spending scarce resources on Google priorities instead of its own.
COGS Visibility - Escalate Finance Data Access via Bjorn
Committed to scheduling a tri-party meeting with Ryan and Bjorn to secure finance data access (loaded rates) for Ryan's Intelligence Hub. Finance (Marlon, Kelly) previously denied Ryan's direct requests.
Google Scope Change - Hold the Line on Commercial Terms
Decided to personally join the Monday lunch meeting with Tissa to lead negotiation on Google scope change. Google was trying to bundle Rocky 8 and 9 into one version (reducing from 8 to 5 versions) and push release next format without updated commercial terms.
H1 Planning Framework - 3-Lane Model
Pushed for the team to focus on ICPs, goals, and milestones rather than getting lost in metrics and mid-level tactics. Established a 3-lane framework (GTM, Value Drivers, Engineering) to align all work.
ICP Consolidation - RLCH and RLCAI into Fuzzball
Consolidated RLCH (Rocky Linux Confidential Hardened) and RLCAI ICPs with Fuzzball ICPs to simplify GTM. RLCH targets regulated industries, government, power distribution. RLCAI targets AI-inferencing and compute-heavy industries. Rocky Pro kept separate for mid-market RHEL/SUSE/Oracle replacement motion.
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.
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.
Related Patterns (11)
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.
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.
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.
Decide on the Precedent, Not the Case
When a request arrives framed as a one-off, Peter does not evaluate the one-off. He evaluates the rule that granting it would write, and answers that instead. Peter generalized this himself on 2026-08-11: it is always about understanding precedent - whether it is a comp change or anything that structurally affects the company. It is therefore NOT a compensation pattern; the domain of the presenting request is incidental. The tell that this pattern is live is that the stated reason for the answer refers to future cases rather than to the merits of the present one.
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.