Michael Shinn
Aug 19, 2026 - Oct 30, 2026
8
Decisions
0
Active Todos
15
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (8)
Grenoble pitch - Peter quarterbacks the technical answers and capabilities due within 6-8 weeks are presented as in final test
In the 10/26 Grenoble prep, with Bjorn unavailable for part of the call, Peter quarterbacked who answers which questions. The spreadsheet had been answered affirmatively although some items need six to eight weeks of development; the agreed posture was to engage on them as capabilities in final dev and test that will exist by rollout. Bjorn set the sales posture of not pushing the full stack on a customer that wants Stratum.
Core42 10/29 - CIQ is not the bottleneck; the only CIQ task is a best-practice doc for Warewulf in secure environments, routed to Michael Shinn
After the 10/29 Core42 calls Peter stated it is very clear to Core42 leadership that CIQ is not the bottleneck and network is. The only immediate CIQ deliverable is a best-practice design doc for deploying Warewulf into a secure environment (ILO, FE, OOB network requirements, where Warewulf sits, what must be open between zones), mirroring other secured deployments, to Core42 security. Peter routed it to Michael Shinn with Adam as the delivery path.
Refuse to build the non-OS Core42 work on top of Ubuntu - getting moving is fine, doing the work entrenches the competitor
Ahead of the Sep 22 Alex meeting in LA, Bjorn argued for starting the Core42 HLD items that are not gated on the operating system, on the reasoning that the deeper CIQ is embedded the more leverage it has to push Rocky through certification. Peter agreed with the aim and refused the method. He separated getting moving from doing the technical work: most of the boxes on that list get built into and integrated with the OS itself, so building them now would be doing the wiring to embed Ubuntu with Core42 rather than embedding CIQ. He also reclassified the expanded scope as SOW3 rather than SOW2, on the grounds that an extra step - getting Rocky in everywhere - has been inserted ahead of it, and told Bjorn that what he wants out of the Alex meeting is a handshake on the gates to swap Ubuntu for Rocky: certification, an application test-and-certify pass, a swap plan, a timeline and a project plan. He accepted Adam Jackson two-section meeting structure and Bjorn sequencing, agreeing to open on what CIQ can do for Alex, then take ten minutes on the removal gates. In the same exchange, after Bjorn reacted to his absolutes, Peter located the fix in his own framing rather than in the position - leave the black and white statements out, make no statement about can or cannot, just walk through the gate.
Set a floor on personal data CIQ staff hand Core42 - passport yes, property deed no, and demand the required list
Core42 sent a request for personal information as part of background checks for site access ahead of the Sept 18 hardware access date. In #core-42-escalation-members Peter answered with his own position first, tagging Adam Jackson: he will give them a passport, not a deed. In the eight-person Core42 group DM he told Adam there is going to be a problem with that request for info, that he will not give them the deed to his house, that he is confident the bulk of the people on the Linux team will not either, that passports are fine, and that CIQ should be super clear about exactly what information is required. In the DM with Nathan Blackham he repeated that CIQ needs clarity on what info is absolutely required and that he has no interest in giving them his address either. He then tested the requirement himself - he submitted his address, judging it enough for a background check and public record anyway, and reported back that Core42 had emailed asking for additional info including a proof of residency document, for which they accept a utility bill.
Refuse to guarantee Oct 5 for Core42 if CIQ is deploying Ubuntu - give a likely range unless the customer demands a guarantee
Asked by Adam Jackson in #core42-build-and-deploy whether CIQ could commit to an Oct 5 completion starting Sept 18, Peter answered no for the full-Ubuntu-deployment scope: there is absolutely a chance CIQ would hit it, but CIQ cannot guarantee it. He then separated the scopes - if it is just Fuzzball, and Ubuntu is already stood up on the racks and networked, and CIQ gets access Sept 18, then absolutely CIQ could hit that date. He gave the rule for how to answer the customer: be VERY careful about guarantees in a new environment and an OS that is not ours, because a guarantee puts CIQ in a position to lose future business when this is the first time CIQ is doing this; if Core42 MUST have a guarantee that is one thing, but if they only want a likely range then give the range and do not make an unforced error. He then asked the four scoping questions that decide which scope applies - is Ubuntu already installed, is networking already set up, is there a provisioning machine available for ELM, and exactly how many machines.
Call the Core42 SOW1 won mid-call and forbid reopening anything that does not need reopening
During the Aug 24 Core42 and CIQ call, the customer side kept probing why the SOW does not cover the broader logical control set, and the CIQ team started engaging on where work splits under partials. Peter intervened twice in four minutes in the internal channel running alongside the call. First he reframed the confusion: I think we have lost track of the fact that ultimately there will be 2 SOWs. Then, once Alex Trafton had asked whether they could sign, he closed it: this is won, we should be careful not to re-open ANYTHING that does not need to be reopened. When Adam Jackson asked whether he could stop screen-sharing the HLD, Peter answered yes please stop sharing. The team changed behaviour inside the same minute - Bjorn said I will wrap, Brian Dawson said he would refrain from additional comment and let Bjorn and Adam land it, and Adam stopped sharing. The SOW1 final package went out to Core42 by email that afternoon.
Show Core42 the responsibility matrix filled in, not blanked - a first cut we are flexible on beats arriving with an empty working sheet
In the Core42 implementation-review pre-call on 2026-08-18, Michael Shinn was uneasy about showing his RACI/responsibility diagram because it assumed a much larger scope than Core42 might want, and offered to blank the boxes so the conversation could fill them in. Adam Jackson agreed and asked for the letters removed so CIQ would go in with no expectation. Peter challenged that directly and argued for leaving the chart filled in, framed as a first cut with an explicit statement that CIQ is flexible and not married to any of it. Adam conceded. On the following morning call the control matrix was in fact presented as a draft rather than as a blank working sheet.
Fork the Core42 engagement into two SOWs and let nothing delay the first - land the GB300 paper now, put the expanded security architecture in a separate SOW
On the Aug 19 CIQ-C42 Gap Analysis Part 2 call, Alex Trafton (Core42 CISO, roughly 10 weeks into the role) opened a scope far wider than the existing SOW - PAM consolidation across 4-plus tools, continuous vulnerability management, AI-specific security, physical and OT telemetry correlation, and future AMD MI350X deployments. The room read it as a much larger opportunity. Peter, facilitating, held the immediate GB300 deployment SOW as a closeable unit on its own and pushed the expanded scope into a separate second SOW. In the debrief immediately after the call he put it to Adam Jackson directly: But you agree, Adam, that for the next couple of days, it is just about getting that first SOW across. Adam: Yeah, 100 percent, Peter, 100 percent. Peter: I just do not want to put anything in the way of that. The same instinct had been set the night before in the pre-call, where the agreed play was to propose a second SOW or a simple addendum rather than expand the current paper.
Related Patterns (15)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Promise Only What Is Inside CIQ Control
Applies when someone asks CIQ to commit to an outcome whose delivery depends partly on something CIQ does not own - a lead time, a third-party publisher, a customer-provided environment, an unsigned contract. Peter does not accept or refuse the request as posed. He isolates the specific component that sits outside CIQ delivery chain, refuses that component by name, and substitutes an adjacent commitment CIQ can actually keep - then often adds a harder problem worth solving in its place, so the counterparty gets more engagement rather than less.
Measure, Commit Publicly, Then Execute
A three-beat escalation arc Peter runs when he needs a commitment from a peer or the CEO that private pressure has not produced. Beat one: measure the thing and get a number. Beat two: state the commitment in a venue where the people who matter are watching. Beat three: execute against it. The 2026-04-15 observation names the sequence explicitly and notes he does not skip steps, because each beat builds the legitimacy of the next. The venue choice is treated as a decision in its own right, separate from what the message says. Mined from 8 independent observations between 2025-12-29 and 2026-08-28. NOTE: scope this to the venue-and-sequence mechanism specifically - forcing function is a phrase that appears loosely across many unrelated decisions and should not be taken as a match on its own.
Install the Criterion Before the Argument
Applies to a contested question that has not been argued yet - a meeting about to start, a test about to run, an escalation just received, a proposal about to be written. Peter moves first to fix the criterion, the boundary or the posture, before anyone argues the substance. The consistent effect, named explicitly in the 2026-07-29 observation, is that the other party cannot win by being more persuasive on the merits, because the merits are no longer the axis. Distinct from Reclassify to Route in mechanism: that pattern reassigns who owns a question, this one controls WHEN the criterion lands relative to the debate. The two frequently co-occur. Mined from 7 independent observations between 2026-01-20 and 2026-08-31.