That's partly my fault. Evan focuses on more technical sides of things but there are people in the team that focus more on the community aspect and we didn't catch that potential naming issue and the whole message that the RFC gives away.
We're all still learning how to work with the RFC documents. We want them to be an important tool for the community but initially, the response from the community was very low. Paradoxically this whole situation made the wider community aware of those RFC documents so hopefully it will go in a good direction. But that initial low response made us believe "oh we have time to sort out things like the phrasing". Turned out it was wrong.
The advice to change the names came from the community and it was a good one. It got support in the core team internal channels and got implemented.
We're all still learning how to work with the RFC documents. We want them to be an important tool for the community but initially, the response from the community was very low. Paradoxically this whole situation made the wider community aware of those RFC documents so hopefully it will go in a good direction. But that initial low response made us believe "oh we have time to sort out things like the phrasing". Turned out it was wrong.
The advice to change the names came from the community and it was a good one. It got support in the core team internal channels and got implemented.