2 min lesson
The allocation review you run
Name the parts in "The allocation review you run" and give the practical job of each one.
Step 1 of 2
The allocation review you runthe forum is the deliverable
You build the framework and you run the forum, but you do not make the final call on who gets the GPUs. That is the influence-without-authority test in its purest form: you set the agenda, bring the evidence and force a clear decision from the leaders who do own it.
- Cadence
- Recurring (often monthly or per planning cycle), so allocation is a standing decision, not a fire drill.
- Who's in the room
- ML/Research and Infra leadership - the people who own demand and supply respectively.
- What you bring
- Current utilization, the demand forecast, requests on the table and the tradeoff each implies.
- What you own
- The framework, the data and a forced, documented decision - not the allocation verdict itself.
If asked how you'd allocate GPUs across teams, resist naming a winner. Describe the framework and the review instead: "I'd bring utilization and a demand forecast to a recurring review with ML and Infra leadership, surface the tradeoff each request implies and drive them to a documented decision. I own the framework and the forum; they own the call." That answer shows you understand the role's authority boundary.
Reaching for "buy more GPUs" as the first answer is a tell. The efficient move is almost always to raise utilization on capacity you already pay for before committing to more. Naming utilization first separates someone who has managed a fleet from someone who has only requested one.