It would be so interesting to know what has been the background discussion here. I started to think something like heartbleed.
Anyhow, this statement causes forward-dependency, a single open source developer can turn out to be somehow responsible of X future systems. The intent is good, but instead the responsibility should be shared , either the single developers should try to recruit help or those X other systems which use this critical piece should chip in and help. Antifragility would be valuable in this case.
So I would suggest change to be more proactive: “requires that computing professionals monitor the level of integration of their systems into the infrastructure of the society and react with responsibility when considering future maintenance”.
Quite often, e.g. open source software can be developed by one person, who are kind and share their code, but it is quite a different thing to put them the burden to take care of the sw from here to eternity. E.g. mentioning that this code is not maintained is very useful info. Sometimes those who utilize to software feel entitled to enter requirements, and that can be quite unfair, so this principle should be fair to both sides.