It is puzzling! Best I know, this project has been baking for nearly a decade, with no “bikeshedding” over the name. The new name was imposed without public discussion, let alone an attempt to “seek consensus”. No rationale was given. In fact, I have yet to see anyone speak in favor of the new name on any basis other than that The SC Has Spoken™.
Not saying there isn’t a good technical case to be made, just that I haven’t seen one, and haven’t thought of one.
Compounding the confusion, over in the related topic we saw:
But it the name “is not a core issue”, on what basis did the SC say anything about the name?
Some clarity about this process is needed.