Team
Who we are.
The engineers
The people who scope the work are the ones who approve it. There is no delivery layer between the call and the commit: the engineer who sized the work signs off on every change that ships under it, whoever wrote it.
That is a review gate, not a headcount promise. Work gets delegated, deliberately — it is how engineers become senior engineers, and a shop that refuses to delegate is a shop with a bus factor of one. What you are buying is the approval, and the approval has a name on it.
| Zach Norman | Founder, Los Angeles. Platform and compliance architecture — scopes the engagement and approves what ships under it. linkedin.com/in/zacharyno [CONFIRM: years in regulated infrastructure, and the one line naming the FedRAMP / IL work you want stated publicly] |
|---|---|
| [PLACEHOLDER] | Name, years in regulated infrastructure, and the one sentence naming what they hold on an engagement |
| [PLACEHOLDER] | Optional third line. Leave this row out rather than pad it — a three-person list that is really two is the first thing a counterparty checks |
Why the team is small on purpose
Two thousand physical hosts run by four engineers is not a slogan — it is the constraint that produced the way we work. A team that small cannot afford a manual step anywhere, which is why the method is what it is.
It is also the honest limit. We take one active track at a time, we are not your full-time ops person, and we work best when you have one or two developers who can merge PRs.
Who you do not get
- An account manager. You have the engineers’ inbox.
- A rotating account team. Delegation happens, and the engineer who scoped your work approves every change that ships under it — that person does not rotate.
- A 3am pager. Sev 1 in four hours is the commitment, stated plainly rather than discovered in month two.
The rest of the boundary is on how we work, and the artifacts are on proof.