Sarah Almaraz
Dec 19, 2025 - Aug 18, 2026
27
Decisions
0
Active Todos
13
Patterns
Decisions (27)
Ask Greg to take Peter off the RESF directive so it reads as CEO-to-RESF instead of CEO-correcting-his-CTO - and pair it with a standing Lee status cadence
In the 2026-08-18 C-Suite Sync, Greg proposed DMing Peter, Dieter, Lee and possibly Brian to reiterate that more CIQ people need to be involved and that things need to move faster on the RESF side. Peter agreed to the substance but asked to be removed from the recipient list: So yes, but play this game with me. I think if you send that DM to the list of people you said, which includes me, and now I ask myself how I can perceive that from Brian perspective. I can perceive it as Greg telling his employee, Peter, to involve more people, and you are just notifying Brian that Peter has been told. If I am not on the email, and it is just going to Brian and Lee and Dieter, do you see what I am saying? I think you can speak really differently. He asked instead for a copy sent separately - I would just send it directly to them and then send me a copy of it just so I know exactly what you said - and suggested Greg tell them he expects Peter to be receptive to anything they ask. Separately Peter asked Greg to secure a standing status cadence with Lee, explaining that Lee is the one with the broad overview but does not work for Peter in this capacity, whereas Dieter will supply status on request. Greg agreed to have Sarah set up a weekly or biweekly Peter-Lee meeting, and Peter accepted.
Decline the DGX Spark allocation for now - a queue exists, Peter owns it, and the next batch is gated on CIQ showing Nvidia progress first
Sarah Almaraz relayed a request for a DGX Spark unit for Brian on 2026-08-15. Peter refused flatly and gave the conditions that would change the answer: You cannot. When Nvidia has more to give us I can put Brian on the list. But there are other people first. And we need to show some progress to Nvidia first. Realistically it is going to be a few more weeks before we might get more. He closed by taking the explanation upward himself - I will walk Bjorn through it though.
Run a Monday state-of-the-Linux storytelling session on pipeline, and have Baek carry the same rah-rah into the all-hands
Acting on a morale signal that surfaced in Gregs round of one-on-ones, Peter committed to sitting down with the Linux org on Monday to walk them through what he is seeing in the Middle East and with Google. He framed it explicitly as storytelling and cheerleader rah-rah about why he feels so bullish, not as a status update, and asked Chris Baek to sprinkle a little bit of the same into the upcoming company all-hands. He gave the diagnosis comparatively - the Linux org is meh on our future while Fuzzball is gangbusters and Ryans org is gangbusters, and there is no reason for Linux to be less positive about our future than everybody else - and bounded the response with it is not a risk right now. Sarah had already blocked Monday for the session.
Every org owes its own delivery-performance metric system, and Wolfords dashboard is the deliberate exemplar - used to train the Linux side of the house
Peter restructured the 7/28 Engineering Weekly into a fast breadth-first TPS pass followed by a single-org deep dive, and made Wolford go first on purpose. After Wolford walked through his PIC tooling - PR review latency, time-to-merge, bug-vs-feature ratio, commit distribution, release cadence, internal and external documentation coverage, plus a per-quarter epic assignment board - Peter named the ask explicitly: I dont care whether there is a dashboard or just a system that reports a set of metrics, but this is the kind of thing I am going to be looking for from every org. It is not an accident that Wolfords going first here. He then propagated the exemplar three ways: forwarded the Fathom recap to Bjorn saying he was using it to help train the Linux side of the house, told Nathan to watch the recording because there are critical things in there that will impact your teams and that I want to be able to talk through in terms of team management, and told Wolford directly that the presentation was exactly what I wanted/needed to kick that all off - while warning him you will not be impressed when Linux and the other portions of eng deliver theirs. Sarah set the rotation: Wolford, then Nathan, then Steve, Ryan and Justin.
Bring Ryan to SKO (Aug 19-21, LA) - make the ask on his behalf and let him choose his own duration
In the 7/23 Ryan 1:1 Peter learned nobody had asked Ryan about the sales kickoff. He decided support should be represented, said he would take it to Chris Baek himself, and explicitly refused to dictate how long Ryan should attend - I am going to turn it around, I am going to support whatever you want. He called Baek the same evening and confirmed back to Ryan an hour later that Baek was on board. Peter himself attends only Thursday the 20th.
Approve the Tim Pepper consulting proposal, then push back on the absence of a standard contracting process rather than hand-roll the SOW
Greg forwarded Tim Peppers consulting proposal to Peter on 7/21 with apologies for the latency, and Peter approved it flatly the same afternoon - I am good with this - without asking cost, scope, or management in the thread. He forwarded it to Sarah on 7/23 to get it moving. On 7/24 when Sarah relayed that Gregs next step was for Peter to follow through with the contract, Peter declined to hand-roll it and asked where the standard process was. Sarahs answer confirmed there is not a reliable one - CIQ has done things fast and not by the book with other people, case by case - and she took an action to check with HR.
Institute a rotating per-team deep dive at the Tuesday staff meeting, anchored on empirically measurable metrics co-designed in the room
Peter gave the same instruction independently to Chris Wolford and Steve Wallace on 7/23. Each org lead will take roughly 45 minutes of the Tuesday staff meeting on a five-week rotation. Three parts: a functional overview or demo of what the team delivered in the last month and is working on next; a project-plan view with milestones, tracking, who is on what, and how team time is being spent; and a set of empirically measurable metrics. The metrics do not have to be right the first time - the explicit purpose of doing it in front of peers is to argue out which metrics are the correct ones for each org. Metrics differ by domain: on the Linux side Peter wants automation measures such as the percentage of PRs auto-approved by Nerf versus human-approved; on PIC Chris proposed PR volume and the rate at which releases require bug fixes over time. Chris Wolford presents first, Tuesday.
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.
Add Justin to Binarly meeting; debrief AFTER, not before
Peter added Justin Haynes to tomorrow Binarly meeting to ensure engineering representation. Explicit decision to debrief Justin AFTER the meeting rather than pre-coaching him beforehand.
Peter delivers Reno QBR C-suite intro Thursday — covering Bjorn late arrival
Peter will deliver the C-suite intro at Reno QBR Thursday morning, since Bjorn arrives Thursday afternoon. Peter arrives 8:45 AM Thursday. Greg travels to Houston with Adam for a 1 PM Thursday sales meeting.
Manage Max situation — protect privacy, halt org outreach, decline his calendar
Peter is actively shielding Max Spevack from organizational pressure during a personal/private situation. Directed Sarah to access Max's calendar and decline all his meetings for the week, told Ryan to stand down ("No reaching out"), told Nathan to stand down ("worst thing Ryan can do is involve himself"), declined Mariah's offer to use Max's emergency contact ("let's give it a little more time"). Committed to talk with Max himself early this week.
Block Max's calendar — don't schedule anything for the time being
In a DM (4/17 11:10 AM Pacific), Peter directed Sarah (assistant) to stop scheduling anything for Max Spevack for the time being. This operationalizes the indefinite-leave posture triggered by Christina's 4/16 7:45 PM call telling Peter that Max needs time away. Rather than letting Max's calendar keep generating missed-meeting signals to the org (like the 4/16 1:1 and interview no-shows), Peter chose to block new scheduling entirely until further notice.
Sensitive Decision
Start Skip-Level 1:1s Next Week — 30 Min, 1-2 Per Week
Approved starting skip-level 1:1s with 12 key engineering ICs (Dieter, Maple, Skip, Jeremy, Andrew, Sultan, Alex, Mustafa, Joseph, Zorina, Giovani, Rahul). 30 minutes each, 1-2 per week, random order. Sarah to schedule.
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.
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.
Pushed for March ARR review, rejected April as too late
Directed Sarah and Greg to schedule an ARR targets review meeting in March, pushing back on an April date as too late. Wants to ensure the company is on track for revenue targets and can pivot anything needed. Offered personal availability and said format doesn't matter.
Shared Mini-Me delegate access with Bjorn for collaborative todo management
Gave Bjorn delegate access to Mini-Me web app so he can see Peter's todo list, enabling collaborative work on shared priorities during Dubai travel week. Walked him through the limited view and how it works. Also instructed Bjorn to have Sarah coordinate with Moody for Google/Slack permissions setup for a new person.
Value Drivers document cannot be automated from Jira - fills a gap Jira lacks
Clarified that the Value Drivers Release Plan document cannot be automated from Jira. The document was created specifically to fill a gap in Jira - linking engineering deliverables to GTM deliverables around WHY certain work is being done. Since Jira does not contain this linkage data, automating from Jira would just reproduce the gap.
NVIDIA partnership scope agreed - CIQ Rocky Linux for NVIDIA AI at GTC
Agreed with Scott Hara on NVIDIA partnership deliverable: CIQ will deliver a free CIQ Rocky Linux for NVIDIA AI (with AI patches + NVIDIA drivers) for GTC showcase in ~8 weeks. No requirement to upstream to community Rocky short-term. Support cadence: 1-2h kickoff Q&A, then 3 weekly 1h sessions, then ad hoc. CIQ maintains distro with minimal NVIDIA intervention; NVIDIA supplies patches, system access, and optimization guidance.
Estimation philosophy: move dates early, hold them late
Project dates should be moved when new information is learned, rather than just dropping confidence when dates pass. Early SWAG dates should be updated once actual scoping begins. Red patterns in dashboards reflect engineers being trained not to move goalposts - this needs to change.
All-Hands messaging: acknowledge Q4 miss, pivot to pipeline optimism
Aligned with leadership on All-Hands messaging strategy: directly acknowledge Q4 revenue miss, then pivot to optimistic outlook highlighting $22M H1 pipeline and unified GTM plan. Peter to present tech updates (service endpoints, Nerf) and guide Mural board walkthrough. No naming specific deals to avoid premature expectations.
Ali Contract Termination Executed
Sent termination email to Ali Erdinç Köroğlu on Jan 5 after missed Dec 31 sync meeting and other missed meetings. Coordinated with Mariah (HR) and Sarah to cancel calendar invites and deactivate systems.
Friday Layoff List Finalized
Finalized the layoff list for Friday Jan 9: Eli, Derek, Chris Short, Craig, and Trinity. Jason deferred due to ISO certification needs.
AI Bot Architecture Decision
Decided to build a web app to front the AI bot, allowing curated outputs to be shared with Sarah and others without granting direct data access to underlying Slack/email/Jira data.
RLC 9.7 Launch Path Decision
Participated in RLC 9.7 Launch planning meeting to decide path forward on release and rework priorities.
Championing AI Butler Internal Adoption
Hosted and recorded the AI Dashboard/Butler setup session to drive internal adoption of Claude-based personal productivity tools across CIQ. Shared personal use case of creating meeting prep notes from Slack/email/docs.
Related Patterns (13)
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.
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.
Pragmatic Technical Middle Ground
When facing competing concerns (security vs innovation, access vs protection), find technical solutions that satisfy multiple stakeholders rather than debating policy or picking sides.