Hi Mickael,
I understand what you're trying to achieve here.
My opinion is that your proposal is overkill. We are already working on the image and we're making some progress.
Let me take this opportunity to state my opinions on how this relatively difficult task should be approached - also using my experience of many months working on the @EclipseJavaIDE.
We have some shortcomings in some areas - as all products do (we also have some super cool features, also as all products do). We need to address them but also show people that we addressed them. These are two 'vectors' of work that should go hand-in-hand. If you do the work (performance improvements, features etc.) but don't advertise it - it's almost as you didn't do it. But also, if you just worry about the image, but lack in substance improvements then you're just kicking the can down the road. It will come and bite you eventually.
These two vectors of work need to progress together and at the same pace. You're going to do more harm than good otherwise. That is, you can advertise more than you are but it's a matter of time before that mirage breaks apart - with the bonus of wrecking your channels' credibility. And on the other side, if you advertise much less than your work, you're doing a disservice to the effort spent by the committers and contributors by not spreading the word about their excellent work.
In the context laid above, your radical re-branding would be an attempt to overstate the 'radicalness' of the change in substance. The result would be a disappointment (for lack of radical change) in the first 5 minutes of using the IDE and a wreck of the trust in the marketing process for next time. Your proposal would be warranted if we are undergoing a similar-sized substantial change.
In my opinion the fact that @EclipseJavaIDE is getting more and more popular by the day is that, since it's being run by a developer, it is able to join these two vectors of work consistently.
Sopot
