Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is an AI strategy meeting.

I'd propose a middle path: standardised tools with clear guardrails, but autonomy within those boundaries. Each team picks their use cases, but the safety framework is non-negotiable.

Guardrails. Boundaries. This is why organisations lose — too many rules. Our competitors are deploying while we're deliberating.

I understand your frustration, Buck. Perhaps Lionel's middle path is something we can all live with? I really think there's more common ground than anyone expects.

I've been reading about governance and found a good breakdown in The AI Joomla Blueprint . Aimed at web folks, but the principles are solid — establish foundations, set boundaries, then ride hard within them. MY kind of framework.

Here's my proposal. One: automated monitoring with human escalation. Two: standardised development tooling. Three: a one-page governance charter. Four: quarterly review. Can we agree?

Four points? I can work with that. But I want it on record I advocated for more aggressive posture. When we're dominating in six months, remember who pushed for speed.