3 ms·

> 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 e

by Sephr 11y ago

> 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).

sarciszewski 11y ago
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?"
- daenney 11y ago
  Stakeholders != CEO. It can be, but it's hardly the only option.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    We don't have puppeteers, so, it's the only approximation I could muster from my experience.
    - fenomas 11y ago
      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?
      - sarciszewski 11y ago
        I misread it as "shareholders" to be honest.
OniBait 11y ago
I would hope "stakeholders" is in reference to Project Stakeholders (i.e. Project Managers) and not stakeholders in the company (which would be absurd).
woah 11y ago
I think you've confused "stakeholders" with "shareholders".
gavingmiller 11y ago
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.
Sephr 11y ago
I think I was confused with shareholders vs stakeholders.

by Sephr 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago

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?"

daenney 11y ago
Stakeholders != CEO. It can be, but it's hardly the only option.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  We don't have puppeteers, so, it's the only approximation I could muster from my experience.
  - fenomas 11y ago
    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?
    - sarciszewski 11y ago
      I misread it as "shareholders" to be honest.

OniBait 11y ago

I would hope "stakeholders" is in reference to Project Stakeholders (i.e. Project Managers) and not stakeholders in the company (which would be absurd).

woah 11y ago

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

gavingmiller 11y ago

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.

Sephr 11y ago

I think I was confused with shareholders vs stakeholders.