Ian Jackson's general resolution to prevent init system coupling has failed to pass, the majority vote deciding that the resolution is unnecessary. This means that not only will Debian's default init be systemd, but packages will not be required to support other init systems. Presumably, this means that using other init systems on Debian (without using systemd as a base) will not be possible without major workarounds, or possibly at all. It also leaves the future of Debian projects such as kFreeBSD unclear, as systemd is linux specific.
The vote results can be found here
The winners are:
Option 4 "General Resolution is not required"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @02:51PM
Yes, the sophistry can be avoided and the questions can be more accurately stated.
1. Systemd as the only init with packages depending on its bundled payload
2. Systemd as an availiable init with no packages depending on its bundled payload
3. Do not care
That is the situation and it seems option 2 would have won that one eh?
(Score: 2) by gringer on Wednesday November 19 2014, @07:34PM
Your option 1 is closest to Option 3 "Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers decide".
Your option 2 is closest to Option 1 "Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system".
Your option 3 is closest to Option 4 "General Resolution is not required".
Bear in mind that the text for these options was bashed out and agreed upon by voters. Any one person may have a view of options that they think is better than the ones that are used, so the chosen options are necessarily a compromise.
Because you include the apathy option, it wins over all others. There were no situtations in the vote where another option defeated option 4. Here are the fights for the closest matches to what you suggested:
Option 3 defeats Option 1 by ( 263 - 183) = 80 votes.
Option 4 defeats Option 1 by ( 323 - 147) = 176 votes.
Option 4 defeats Option 3 by ( 308 - 135) = 173 votes.
In the ordering, this would be 4 > 3 > 1, or using your numbers, 3 > 1 > 2. I find it doubtful that a re-wording of the options would change the ranking that much to put last place into first place.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]