Kelly
Jan 12, 2026 - Apr 29, 2026
25
Decisions
0
Active Todos
5
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (25)
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 (5)
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.