These two sentences don't actually join together well logically:
> A recent access review had revealed that many systems were under the control of a single individual, which we determined presented a risk to the security and operational sustainability of those systems. We had intended to resolve this over time.
and:
> ... the departure of key maintainers and contribution data showing that some maintainers had long periods of inactivity (Least Privileged Access), changed the timeline.
As the 2nd doesn't really change anything about the 1st. If that "single individual" has been acting maliciously or similar then it might, but they don't present evidence of that being the case. So there's nothing about the 2nd statement which has anything to support changing any kind of timeline.
> A recent access review had revealed that many systems were under the control of a single individual, which we determined presented a risk to the security and operational sustainability of those systems. We had intended to resolve this over time.
and:
> ... the departure of key maintainers and contribution data showing that some maintainers had long periods of inactivity (Least Privileged Access), changed the timeline.
As the 2nd doesn't really change anything about the 1st. If that "single individual" has been acting maliciously or similar then it might, but they don't present evidence of that being the case. So there's nothing about the 2nd statement which has anything to support changing any kind of timeline.
ie this all seems to be bullshit