Effectively, it is “a new language,” and what I would suggest is:   stop calling it ‘Perl (6).’

The problem with every computer language is its history.   The literally millions of installed programs, web sites, and so-forth which consist of code that has been well tested and proved ... and for which, pragmatically, the most important consideration is that they continue to do so, even as bugs are fixed and as evolutionary improvements are made in the host language implementation.

“Dance with the one who brung ’ya, ’cuz he’s the one driving you home.”   No matter how badly you might want to “improve things,” continuity of service, and risk-management, really does trump everything.   If you want to bring in “a new language,” then by all means, do so.   Just say that this is what you’re doing.   Don’t bring radical change into the scope of a massive, mature, multi-billion dollars’ worth, installed base.

There are real technical-risk potentials there, and risk is never welcome at the dinner table.   “Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.”

Instead, just call it something else.   Clearly-separate, albeit perhaps source-compatible or mostly-source-compatible, language systems.   Distinct names.   (“Lerp?”   “Camel.poo?”)   Everyone from the CEO to the janitor will avoid the confusion that can, once again, result in risk.   Eliminate ambiguity with regard to what you are actually talking about.   (Our techno-babble is already bad enough as it is.)