Should 'chpl' be part of our project's identity for the long-term?

This issue is related to #10, #9, and #2. In recent discussions about renaming Chapel, we have generally been in favor of retaining 'chpl' as an element of Chapel's future identity (whatever the name) in order to reduce the number of things we would have to change if we were to do a project renaming (think: file extensions, compiler/tool names, etc. — see the two distinct categories of changes in #2 for additional examples). The main way of achieving this that we've discussed would be to ensure that any future name of the language starts with "C" such that we could refer to ourselves as the "C______ High Productivity Language".

In this issue, I'm interested in taking a straw poll to see where the TSC stands on retaining 'chpl' for the long-term versus being open to names that might not support 'chpl' as a short-hand for use in our tools, file extensions, etc.

:+1: : whether or not we change the name in the future, I think we should retain 'chpl' as a way of referring to the language (was: ~I agree that any future name change should retain 'chpl' as a way of referring to the language~)
:-1: : I don't think we should constrain ourselves in this way when considering potential future names; though we might accept 'chpl' going forward for backwards compatibility reasons, we shouldn't feel the need to continue investing in it
:confused: I've read this issue, but don't have a strong opinion on this

As with issues #9 and #11, this is not intended as a formal, binding vote of the TSC, but a way to take stock of opinions to determine next steps and understand where more conversation is needed.

Review the related issues #10, #9, #2, and #11 along with this straw poll. There are no files, tests, or implementation entry points identified; the outcome is to capture the TSC's position on retaining “chpl” and determine whether further naming discussion is needed.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.