I didn't downvote myself, but did consider it.

For one, it felt a bit out of place; Fedora isn't defined by systemd, nor Red Hat or IBM. One clear example would be how Fedora has chosen to stick with Btrfs; contrary to Red Hat's demands. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny any partnership or whatsoever. But it's not like Fedora's community has no agency.

Secondly, corsicanguppy's comment seems to imply that Fedora only sticks to systemd out of some obligation towards IBM/RedHat or something. As if the overwhelming majority of distros don't default to systemd.

Thirdly, Poettering works for M$ now. Sure. But systemd remains a Linux project. And quite a good one at that. Even if the likes of dinit and s6 are starting to offer some healthy competition, it's undeniable that systemd continues to have the advantage in terms of received man-hours (in development) and adoption. I hope that Fedora eventually gives others the chance to shine. But outright ditching systemd without a perfect replacement is just foolish.

Systemd is bloated

The bloat argument has absolutely no weight as long it's not properly defined. One's bloat is the other's sane default and vice versa. Please, if you're engaging in good faith, come up with a definition by which the likes of dinit and/or s6 are not bloated while systemd is. Please be complete and rigorous in your assessment.

and known to present security risks.

If you're referring to what's addressed in Madaidan's article, you should not forget that Whonix -the very distro Madaidan used to be a security researcher at- employed systemd to enhance security. And while one might say a lot about Poettering, one simply can't deny that they've got a sound understanding of good security standards and how to implement them. It's therefore unsurprising that both Kicksecure and secureblue (i.e. Linux' finest when it comes to hardened distros) heavily rely on systemd for their bidding.

Don’t see why looking at alternatives wouldn’t be seen as positive growth.

At least we can agree on this 😉.