Having looked at the code. Calling it good software is a dubious proposition at best.
As mentioned in another comment. There are other init replacements that are seeking to solve the same issues as systemd. I bet you can’t name them though since they were never properly evaluated.
Not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Debian uses ranked preference voting. Of the nine committee members, only one ranked sysvinit above either systemd or upstart. The rest were split about which of the two, with systemd winning the tie-break vote, but both were acceptable choices to all eight. There was no tie about whether systemd would have been an acceptable choice; both systemd and upstart were accepted 8-to-1.
The one member who voted in favor of sysvinit resigned after trying to start a general resolution (a vote of the entire project) to overrule the committee, and being told by basically everyone that this was inappropriate. He did not resign over systemd; he resigned, at best, over the process, and really I'd say he resigned because the project had lost confidence in him as someone able to act reasonably in contentious technical situations, which is basically the job of a technical committee member.
Nobody on the technical committee had refused to implement systemd support. The technical committee is not an implementation body anyway, but none of the members have refused to, say, implement systemd support in their packages, and they all remain members of the project.
All of this is public record, e.g.: https://lwn.net/Articles/585504/
(Also, none of what you said is a counterargument to the post you replied to.)
I also don't think avoiding using systemd solves the problem. My preferred alternative to an abandoned systemd is a well-developed systemd, not sysvinit.