Head of Business Development

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: headings using

for section headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We must include sections only if posting has real specific content. We need to parse the posting. The posting includes: - Why we are hiring this role (description) - Why this role matters (description) - What you'll own (list of responsibilities) - Requirements for the role (list) - This is not a fit if (list of disqualifiers) - Why join Source (description) We need to map to sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We have content for About the role (why hiring, why matters). Responsibilities (what you'll own). Requirements (requirements). Qualifications maybe overlapping with requirements. Skills maybe from requirements. Benefits maybe from why join Source? It mentions small team, real deployments, founding commercial role, etc. That's benefits. Pay and Schedule not mentioned, so we should not include those sections. We must not repeat job title as heading. No Job ID etc. We must use

for each section heading. Use

• for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. Use

  for prose. We need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. Remove boilerplate etc. There's no cookie/navigation etc. We need to include sections only when posting has real specific content. So we will have About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits. Possibly we could combine Qualifications and Skills into Requirements? But we need to follow instruction: Use headings for those categories if we have content. We have content for qualifications (shipped production software, closed technical infrastructure deals, comfortable in details, sold into engineering orgs, experience commercializing open-source, based in Bay Area etc). Skills maybe similar. Could split: Requirements = "Shipped production software as an engineer before moving into BD, sales, or partnerships. Backend, infrastructure, distributed systems, or embedded is ideal. Closed technical infrastructure deals at an early-stage company. You found the buyer, ran the deal, and signed it. Comfortable in the details. You can read a codebase, follow an architecture review, and answer hard questions about consistency, sync, and data at the edge. You've sold into engineering orgs and know the difference between a champion and a decision-maker. Experience commercializing open-source or developer infrastructure is a strong plus. Based in the Bay Area, NYC, or another NA tech hub, and willing to travel to customers and partners." Qualifications maybe overlapping; but we could treat Qualifications as same as Requirements? Might be redundant. Better to have Requirements and Qualifications separate if we can differentiate: Requirements: hard requirements; Qualifications: nice-to-have or additional. The posting has "Experience commercializing open-source or developer infrastructure is a strong plus." That's a qualification. Also "Based in the Bay Area..." maybe requirement. Could split. Skills: maybe "Comfortable in the details. You can read a codebase, follow an architecture review, and answer hard questions about consistency, sync, and data at the edge." That's a skill. Also "You've sold into engineering orgs and know the difference between a champion and a decision-maker." That's skill. But we can keep it simple: Use Requirements for the bullet list of must-haves, Qualifications for nice-to-have, Skills for abilities. We also have "This is not a fit if" list - could be part of Requirements or maybe a separate section like "Not a fit". But we don't have a heading for that; we could incorporate into Requirements as bullet points under "Not a fit". However instruction: Use headings only for those specified. We could still include a

  with that list. But better to include as a

  under a

  maybe not heading. Since we don't have a heading for "Not a fit", we can just include as a

  with bullet list. We also have "Why join Source" which is benefits. Thus sections:

  About the role

  with paragraphs describing why hiring, why role matters.

  Responsibilities

  with
  of what you'll own.

  Requirements

  with
  of must-have items.

  Qualifications

  with
  of nice-to-have (experience commercializing open-source etc).

  Skills

  with
  of specific abilities (reading codebase, answering hard questions, sold into engineering orgs, champion vs decision-maker).

  Benefits

  with
  of why join Source (small team, real deployments, founding commercial role, etc). We must not include Pay or Schedule. We need to preserve all substantive information: ensure we don't lose any detail. Let's extract details. About the role: Two paragraphs: "Why we are hiring this role" and "Why this role matters". We'll combine into maybe two

  under About the role. Responsibilities: "What you'll own" bullet list: - The full pipeline, from first conversation to signed contract to expansion. - DevRel and growth surface leads — you qualify them, run the deals, and close them. No SDR team. - Partnerships with hardware makers, platform vendors, and systems integrators building for the edge. - Design-partner relationships. Pick the right early customers, run the engagement, and turn their production usage into the reference for the next ten. - Commercial structure: pricing, contracts, and how managed services get packaged. Built with the founders, not inherited. - The feedback loop into product and engineering. What blocked a deal is roadmap input. - Hiring the BD team, once there's enough pipeline to justify one. We need to keep each as

  • . Requirements: list from "Requirements for the role": - Shipped production software as an engineer before moving into BD, sales, or partnerships. - Backend, infrastructure, distributed systems, or embedded is ideal. - Closed technical infrastructure deals at an early-stage company. You found the buyer, ran the deal, and signed it. - Comfortable in the details. You can read a codebase, follow an architecture review, and answer hard questions about consistency, sync, and data at the edge. - You've sold into engineering orgs and know the difference between a champion and a decision-maker. - Experience commercializing open-source or developer infrastructure is a strong plus. (maybe this is qualification) - Based in the Bay Area, NYC, or another NA tech hub, and willing to travel to customers and partners. We'll separate: Requirements (must-have) maybe first five items (excluding the plus and location?). But location is also a requirement. Let's treat location as requirement. Qualifications: "Experience commercializing open-source or developer infrastructure is a strong plus." Could also include maybe other pluses? Not many. Skills: maybe the ability to read codebase, answer hard questions, sold into engineering orgs, champion vs decision-maker. But those are also in requirements. Might be overlapping. To avoid duplication, we could keep Requirements as the list of experiences, and Skills as the abilities (reading codebase, answering hard questions, sold into engineering orgs, champion vs decision-maker). But then we duplicate content. The instruction: Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. It doesn't forbid duplication, but better to avoid redundancy. However we need to fit into sections; we could allocate each bullet to only one section. Let's think. We could treat Requirements as the baseline experiences: shipped production software, closed technical infrastructure deals, based in location, willing to travel. Qualifications as experience commercializing open-source (plus). Skills as the technical abilities: comfortable in details (read codebase, follow architecture review, answer hard questions about consistency, sync, data at edge), sold into engineering orgs, know champion vs decision-maker. Thus we avoid duplication. Let's extract: Requirements (must-have): - Shipped production software as an engineer before moving into BD, sales, or partnerships. - Closed technical infrastructure deals at an early-stage company. You found the buyer, ran the deal, and signed it. - Based in the Bay Area, NYC, or another NA tech hub, and willing to travel to customers and partners. - Backend, infrastructure, distributed systems, or embedded is ideal. (maybe "ideal" not strict requirement; but we can keep as requirement.) Qualifications (nice-to-have): - Experience commercializing open-source or developer infrastructure is a strong plus. Skills: - Comfortable in the details: you can read a codebase, follow an architecture review, and answer hard questions about consistency, sync, and data at the edge. - You've sold into engineering orgs and know the difference between a champion and a decision-maker. We also have "This is not a fit if" list: we could include as a

    under Requirements or maybe as a separate section but no heading. We'll add as a

    after Requirements maybe with heading? Not allowed. We'll just add a

    with that list as bullet points. "Not a fit if": - You've only ever sold with a sales engineer beside you. - You need a marketing-qualified pipeline handed to you. - You want to lead a team on day one. There is no team yet. - You're more comfortable with the pitch than the product. - You're looking for a mature product with settled pricing. Some of that is yours to build. We'll put that as a

    with

    . Benefits (Why join Source): - Small team. - Real deployments on real hardware. - A founding commercial role with the founders in the room and no layer between you and the technology. - If you left engineering because you wanted to be closer to where the technology meets the world, and you still miss talking to engineers, this is that job. We'll put as
    . Now we need to output HTML fragment only. Let's craft:

    About the role

    Why we are hiring this role DefraDB, our edge-native database, is open source and in production. Partners are deploying real workloads on it today. The stack is ready for more of them. What we don't have is someone whose whole job is finding the teams building edge-first products, understanding what they're trying to ship, and getting Source into it. Until now, that's been the founders. This hire takes it over.

    Why this role matters You'll own every commercial conversation at Source: sales, partnerships, design-partner engagements, managed services deals. You'll work directly with the founders to decide who we go after, what we offer them, and what we say no to. Many of the buyers are engineers — CTOs, infrastructure leads, founders putting compute on hardware that doesn't forgive mistakes. They'll ask how CRDT merges behave under partition, what sync costs on a constrained link, and how verifiability actually works. Others are heads of innovation or business owners who need the technology mapped to what it does for them. You have to work both rooms: go deep with the engineers without an SE beside you, and make the same technology land with someone who will never read the docs. They don't want a deck either way. They want someone who can look at what they're building and tell them where Source fits, and where it doesn't. That's why this role is for a former engineer. You need to hold the technical conversation with the technical buyer, and you need to know the product deeply enough to explain it simply to the one who isn't.

    Responsibilities

    • The full pipeline, from first conversation to signed contract to expansion.
    • DevRel and growth surface leads — you qualify them, run the deals, and close them. No SDR team.
    • Partnerships with hardware makers, platform vendors, and systems integrators building for the edge.
    • Design-partner relationships. Pick the right early customers, run the engagement, and turn their production usage into the reference for the next ten