Leigh
Dec 23, 2025 - Sep 11, 2026
10
Decisions
0
Active Todos
12
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (10)
Cover the OpenELA TSC seat gap personally with Nathan and Leigh, and put Tim Pepper on the RESF relationship question
Sarah Almaraz relayed Arthur Tyde concern in #ea-team that CIQ holds two OpenELA TSC seats assigned to Nathan Blackham and Damen Knight, neither had been participating, and SUSE and Oracle were showing up consistently while CIQ as a founding member was not represented. Arthur asked for three things before the Sept 10 call: confirm Nathan and Damen or name replacements, get a PR submitted for OpenELA issue 36 with confirmed prod access, and name one CIQ engineer to own the import queue. Peter answered with the attendance roster - Myself, Nathan, and Leigh. Separately in the window he told Nathan he has Tim Pepper on as a contractor to look at CIQ relationship with the RESF and how CIQ grows community there, described the role as an OSPO advisor sort of guy here on a contract, asked Nathan for pointers to docs on unifying build infrastructure, and told Nathan to talk to Tim about the structure of his team, how he interfaces with the RESF, and how he wants to evolve that interface. Peter also forwarded Arthur OpenELA TSC threads to Tim Pepper directly.
EU Cyber Resilience Act - scope hinges on legal definitions; Bjorn to engage lawyers; aim to publish our own definitions
On the CRA thread (raised by Leigh Hennig re a Sept 11 deadline for RESF/Rocky/CIQ), Peter directed that the entire scope hinges on two definitions - vulnerability and actively exploited - and delegated Bjorn to engage lawyers to weigh in. Strategic aim: ideally CIQ/RESF publishes its own definitions, reframing CRA compliance as living up to our stated market promises rather than being exposed to outside interpretation. Until legal responds, nothing to do.
Mandate CIQ build/test pipeline converge with the RESFs — one unified project, Nathan accountable, coordination over speed
Peter laid down a mandate that CIQs Linux build/test pipeline will become functionally identical to the RESFs over time — a single consolidated project rather than parallel tooling. Nathan drives and is held accountable for closing the CIQ-to-RESF gaps (hardware parity, cut over to Koji, mirrored build infrastructure, a full validation framework that runs PR-specific tests). Justins build world must sign on and use it everywhere. Ryans gauntlet/outfitter tooling and Leighs RESF-side work are welcome only if they plug into the one project rather than forking. Peter explicitly chose coordination over speed even though it slows Ryans faster build-it-now instinct.
RESF Restructure - Confirmed Proceeding Despite Greg's Hesitation
Confirmed CIQ should proceed with the Dieter RESF restructure plan, overriding Greg's expressed concern that the restructure doc might disrupt RESF's current momentum under Leigh. Bjorn aligned with Peter. Greg deferred rather than blocking.
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.
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.
Committed to RESF day-of execution planning meeting next week
Committed in #internal-resf-escalation to organizing a meeting next week to build an execution plan for the RESF day-of lockdown. Directed Sarah to invite Nathan, Max, Justin, and Dieter. Bjorn is finishing messaging drafts this weekend, so technical execution planning must be ready to match the communication track.
RESF Management Model Needed
Identified that RESF needs a clear management person or model as part of short-term response. The lord of the flies approach does not work. Does not matter if its Leigh or someone else, as long as they have personal energy/bandwidth. But it needs to be managed/run with clear accountability.
RESF Crisis Response - Infrastructure Independence
After learning of hostile plans by RESF board members (Louis, Neil, Brian Clemens) to publicly attack CIQ, dismantle Rocky Linux infrastructure, and damage the project, initiated emergency response to replicate RESF infrastructure for Rocky 8, 9, 10 with minimal team awareness.
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.
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.
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.