They are important because of what they did, on their merit. They also selected systemd because it solved problems they had, unlike other candidates.

Do not mistake that with any random Joe gets his opinion voiced.

We are smarter than you. Trust us :)

It's not about being smarter and trusting, it's about doing stuff and having results vs taking a ride for doing nothing.

When I'm getting a free ride, I'm not going to talk down the provider how he should be doing the job differently (not necessarily better; that might be my opinion, but not objective truth). I'm not in his shoes, solving problems he is solving, so my view could be diametrically different than his.

Important people are important people because of their merit. The fact that their opinion counts and not random users' opinion is what makes it a meritocratic instead of a democratic selection.

What you are arguing about is whether those people selected systemd based on its merits or based on other considerations is an entirely different question and an unsubstantiated accusation.

I'm sorry but no, there's no such thing as an objective measure of merit.

In 1991, most of the "important people" in technology would have laughed at Linux compared to OSes like Unix System V and DEC/HP Unix. Even as the 90s progressed most serious shops wouldn't adopt Linux and went for the BSDs (FreeBSD/ NetBSD, etc) or Solaris because Linux was considered hobbyist software. I know because I worked in tech at this time and the same attitude even continued into the early 2000s.

The point I'm trying to make is that random users' opinions are exactly how certain software projects, open source or proprietary, become popular or fall out of public use. It starts with Systems Administrators or developers getting fed up with a certain solution and adopting alternatives until it reaches critical mass and the old is rendered irrelevant.