By turning such bugs into RC bugs, the proponents are exactly advocating
this position: they put the burden on an under-staffed team.
If people feel strongly that init system XYZ should be supported, then presumably somebody will do the work to make sure it is supported, and it does work. As I believe is the case now. e.g. my understanding is Gnome is not dependant on systemd, and it didn't need any GR for this to happen. People didn't do this work only to have it reverted tomorrow.
If nobody is willing to do the work to ensure it does work, maybe that suggests nobody really wants to support XYZ any more.
The result of this GR is not going to change any of the above. It could build up resentment. Especially if maintainers get bug reports for initd systems they don't use, can't test, and can't find anybody willing to offer help to fix the problems.
On another topic, I think we need a GR stating that all software should work 100% with any window manager, especially my favourite window manager, Awesome. Awesome is the only window manager that does X, Y, and Z properly (insert highly controversial/disputed and subjective criteria for X, Y Z, e.g. Unix philosophy, CLI support, keyboard support, single purpose non-integrated non-monolithic design, text configuration files, text log files, etc). If not supported, it prevents me exercising my choice in deciding what window manager I want to use. Never mind that this isn't a big issue; only a GR can guarantee it won't be an issue tomorrow. Anyone want to help me with my proposal? :-)