> They are already in discussion with stakeholders regarding the emergency deployment of this fix.
You know a company is managed ineffectively when you can't even deploy security patches without talking to stakeholders. In any reasonably-managed company, stakeholders would only be involved with the press release announcing the issue (if at all).
That's not what this means at all. In any given company there are X individuals across Y teams involved in deploying a piece of software (never mind an emergency patch). Stakeholders in this context refers to all those involved to make it happen: devs, QA, PMs, documentation, marketing, etc.
The problem isn't solved as soon as a patch is released. This is serious damage control. Handled poorly it blows up. A lone dev doesn't/shouldn't hold all that responsibility.
I would hope "stakeholders" is in reference to Project Stakeholders (i.e. Project Managers) and not stakeholders in the company (which would be absurd).
This is true. The only time I ever had to talk to my CEO about a security patch was, "Sorry, this bug is kind of urgent and the fix needs to be deployed before tonight. Bring be back some orange chicken?"
Where I live, "stakeholders" just means the people responsible for or affected by something. Being "in discussion with stakeholders" about a fix just means talking to everyone involved in getting it deployed.
You know a company is managed ineffectively when you can't even deploy security patches without talking to stakeholders. In any reasonably-managed company, stakeholders would only be involved with the press release announcing the issue (if at all).