[capableweb]

Worth clarifying, only to be precise:

"Systemd but we support exploring alternatives" was what was said in the GR (Choice B in https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002)

So while alternatives could be supported, I guess it's up to the maintainer to decide if these chose to do so. In this case, the maintainer didn't want to, but could of course provide some better argument than "I didn't feel like it and it wasn't a mistake".

[rleigh]

> "I guess it's up to the maintainer"

When you have a high-level direction set by the organisation, you can't have it arbitrarily overridden by individuals with no discussion and no justification. This permits individuals who act against the overall interests of the organisation in persuit of their own agendas to dictate its path simply by being obstructive or contrary. This is not being a team player, or in fact playing fair at all.

[capableweb]

Well, to be fair, the guideline ended up being A) Support systemd and B) Explore alternatives if you want to. In this case, the author chose to do A and not B. That's following the high-level direction and not overriding anything.

[rleigh]

I don't believe it is following the high-level direction at all. It's completely counter to it.

Dropping existing working support is deliberately and intentionally stopping alternatives from working. Refusing to consider help from others to maintain this support is deliberately and intentionally preventing alternatives from being supported.

[capableweb]

Seems you're right, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24493214 (and https://bugs.debian.org/746715) which states "That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason" which I missed when first reading about it. Thanks :)