Carl can make his decisions without you making them for him.
(Though of course it's a major annoyance that you've chosen to be a loud discouraging voice against the adoption, as opposed to an assuring voice from the community saying the direction is good and awesome.
And you wonder why I don't like you...)
You need to get your story straight. Is Ren-C a complete rewrite that should be feared by everyone, or is it a few inconsequential changes that could be easily incorporated?
It is my belief that the changes are geared around achieving the initial purposes of Rebol, and are done in a consistent spirit. But it is a massive rewrite and rethinking, and at this point the evaluator/GC/API and other such pieces are practically all my code.
The only intrinsic part of what Carl did that has stuck would be how he "set up the rules of the game"...he mapped out a set of choices regarding what was acceptable in terms of the scale of the system. This is why we accept cells that are 4 platform pointers in size, for instance...or that it should be buildable with roughly a 1989 C compiler. Someone who was starting the project from scratch in another language might choose a different basis, and that affects a lot of the thinking.
Source code would contain the Copyright 2012 Rebol and Apache License info, as required, but have additional credits for later dates under the new name. (Though I might go about fixing all the files that kind of boilerplate copied that when it was all new code. Fortunately we have a reference point on that.)
I'm saying we would go our own path in marketing if there was a specific rift. If after looking at the direction he doesn't want to say it's Rebol, then neither do I...I'll call it something else. But if he agrees and wants it to be Rebol, then I want that too. Really, both outcomes have their own set of benefits and drawbacks.
I've already said that the core could be used in different packagings. If he doesn't like some of the naming choices and wants a different mezzanine or remapping of natives to be consistent with old documentation, and we can't come to a compromise on the names of functions or whatever...then that can be Rebol. That's plan C, where multiple projects use the same core and just "skin" it differently, under different brands.