pod6 sound very out of place to me for a language called raku. Pod is werid, the 6 makes it even weirder. (Now I think about it is even weird for Perl 6.)

Let's not get into yet another renaming debate. Pod is plain old documentation. pod6 is what we're using now. There's no need to change that. Pod6 is simple Raku documentation language, same as Pod is Perl Documentation language and AsciiDoc (or whatever) is used for Ruby documentation.

I'm locking this ahead of time so that those who want to comment on #81 (but can't because it's locked) won't paste their feedback here simply because there's no other place. It will also allow reviewers (who currently have enough privileges to leave comments here) to have a quiet discussion on what needs to be improved in the PR.

I recommend not to hit approve before this PR stabilizes, because whatever you approve now can be different later. The countdown of 2 weeks will start whenever @jnthn says that this PR looks ready.

Also, I've marked most comments as “outdated” because @lizmat++ did a great job of reading the feedback and adjusting the PR accordingly, most voiced concerns are now reflected in the document. If you feel like something is still missing (or is done wrong), please let us know. If you can't comment on this PR, please talk to us on #perl6 channel on freenode. Thank you!

@AlexDaniel

It seems that nobody wants to even think about issues with extensions, so I give in.

I think the reason many people are hesitant to continue discussing extensions is, because it is unclear whether the discussion is currently allowed or wanted. The word "bikeshedding" has been thrown around multiple times and there have been three PRs all with the goal of getting the discussion over with ASAP. This topic is currently emotionally loaded and people are afraid to get caught in the crossfire.

I think the reason many people are hesitant to continue discussing extensions is, because it is unclear whether the discussion is currently allowed or wanted. The word "bikeshedding" has been thrown around multiple times and there have been three PRs all with the goal of getting the discussion over with ASAP. This topic is currently emotionally loaded and people are afraid to get caught in the crossfire.

Sure, and I totally understand that. But there won't be any other time to discuss it. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, this is the only time to discuss the extensions.

Also, somebody needs to take care of perl6/user-experience#19. It would be nice to have some dedicated effort to help editors get up to date (compared to waiting for years for them to catch up naturally), but I won't be spending any time on that issue.

@AlexDaniel if my list inclusion PR gets approved, then I expect this to be part of my duties.

Ping?

FWIW, I'm getting very depressed about the lack of movement (again). And getting more and more tempted to just close the issue and the associated PR, and write my last Perl 6 Weekly on Monday.

@lizmat a little bit of patience, please? Currently we're 10 9.5 days away from the merge. Things like this shouldn't happen overnight anyway. We've had the wrong name for years, the amount of days we have to wait now is nothing compared to that.

Ping @jnthn @maettu @masak @MasterDuke17 @rba @samcv @timo @tony-o @ugexe

I know some of you already approved the PR, but there were some changes, so please take a look at them and leave a review again.

Also, given how nobody is asking for more changes to this PR, we can probably work on things that need to be done after the rename, like Raku/doc#2951. Obviously none of that should be on master before the merge here, but I see no reason not to start preparing, especially if we're that impatient.

@lizmat Please don't close the issue or PR. They need to stay open and be seen through to completion. These things can take time but the momentum is forward.

Sorry for the delay; I thought I'd already re-approved this last week.

We all did... Only those approvals were invalidated when new commits were added.

Here's a quick update with a clarification because the problem-solving document is worded in a way that is not entirely clear (I'll work on fixing that after we merge this). Basically, everyone has to approve this PR so that we can merge it, but if someone doesn't leave a github review in 14 days, then their approval won't be blocking the merge.

Now, some people explicitly abstained, which is totally fine. However:

By approving a PR the dev confirms that they reviewed and understood the proposal, and that they are OK with it.

So, as I see it, clicking Approve doesn't have to mean that you're fully an advocate of a rename, just that you're fine with the change.

Anyway, as of right now nobody requested any other changes (meaning that we're heading for the merge!), but some people still didn't leave a github review, which means we'll have to wait a bit.

To keep it safe, it'll be 14 days since the voting was restarted. This means that this PR will be merged on October 14th if nobody in the list rejects it or requests more changes.

Because this is a massive change, I'm pinging the reviewers again.
@JJ @jnthn @lizmat @maettu @masak @MasterDuke17 @rba @samcv @timo @tony-o @ugexe

I have not been convinced and am against this. I am choosing to abstain entirely due to the loss of a core developer otherwise. Let us not misconstrue this as a victory as multiple people have decided to abstain despite not agreeing with the principle of the name change -- this result is thus entirely the result of politics, and lacks the technical arguments to have resulted in a true unanimous decision. I hope for my own sake I don't regret not declining this in the future.

this result is thus entirely the result of politics

Indeed. But sometimes politics are needed. You might remember the VHS video standard. Or even Betamax (which was technically superior to VHS). But nobody remembers the Video 2000 standard, which was technically superior to both Betamax and VHS.

I also really wish this wasn't necessary.

Indeed. But sometimes politics are needed. You might remember the VHS video standard. Or even Betamax (which was technically superior to VHS). But nobody remembers the Video 2000 standard, which was technically superior to both Betamax and VHS.

Videotape format war was not won by name, it was won by a technically superior price point. There is nothing in history to suggest Betamax could have won with a different name.

I am in favor of this change, because it reflects an ancient wisdom:

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Wonderful! That's the best endorsement this could get!

Before my thought was just asking for @TimToady blessing on the maintainers' group decision, but it came preemptively!

Thanks everyone for your participation! It's Raku now. It will take some time before the rename is fully complete, but you should see it coming into effect very soon.