Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sephr | Hacker News Reader

> 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).

View on HN

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).

I think you've confused "stakeholders" with "shareholders".

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?"

Stakeholders != CEO. It can be, but it's hardly the only option.

We don't have puppeteers, so, it's the only approximation I could muster from my experience.

I don't understand this thread at all.

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.

Is this term used with other meanings?

I misread it as "shareholders" to be honest.

I think I was confused with shareholders vs stakeholders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com