Debian decides on systemd—for now

"standards and compatibility" are red herrings, because OpenBSD necessarily has to interoperate with *pre-existing* specifications for network services (eg SSH, CVS, and SMTP, NTP) or find themselves completely unable to talk to anyone else, rendering the whole exercise moot. In other words, *everyone* [re-]writing a network service defined by third-party specification (eg a pile of RFCs) has to care about standards and compability.

In areas where they are not forced work with the outside world (eg kernel+libc, syscall interface, system configuration, and even the userspace ABI) they are completely non-portable (even when only compared to other BSDs) and non-standards compliant (unless you consider themselves to be compliant with themself).

(Nevermind you're trying to draw a comparison between a by-definition interoperable network service and something that *launches* network services. Apples and oranges...)

So, two of three of your items are irrelevant, you just now added a fourth ("interoparability") which is equivalent to the first two (and still irrelevant), and the third has been demonstrated to be completely false using the very documentation you accused me of not reading.

Even if one accepts your attempt to move the goalpoasts, you still haven't supported your original assertion that Theo de Raat (and the other core OpenBSD developers) are more dedicated to "standards, compatibility, and interoperability" than the systemd developers.