It may be true. I guess there are a number of different definitions of full-stack and I am aware that it has been quite watered down lately. I hadn’t quite thought of it from a management point of view but what you say makes sense.
It takes a lot of time, and you’d have to be in a position to get experience with these layers. 10-15 years sounds like a reasonable time to me. And obviously there will always be a varying degree of proficiency in different skills but to me they are the foundation for which you can make the correct design decisions developing software.
To be a complete developer you should have good knowledge of these as well. I am a strong believer in one-man-teams 
Or rather I should say the most important thing is “ownership”. You need to have a team who feels they are responsible for the entire stack.
Too often I find teams not picking up a problem because they only see their own small little component and are stuck in their corridors. Software bugs and features often touches the entire stack.
It is a generalist vs specialist argument I guess. In health care for example, you better have a condition which is diagnosed and served by one department only. In more complex cases where you need help from many different kinds of specialist you easily get handed around with no-one taking responsibility.
The same happens in software and this is where the full-stack developer comes in. They are the bridge between the compartments, they take ownership of the product and in the cases where their general skills are not deep enough they can take help of a specialist.
Ok, so agreed. full stack developer may be a meaningless word today. But is there a better word for the role I describe? Someone willing to take ownership of the product and able to make changes to any layer of the stack?
And I still don’t know why you think full-stack is unfortunate and mythical?
