Some Perl 5 people are mad at Perl 6 for being called 'Perl 6'. I always wonder what they think being able to increase the major version number again would actually do: While I agree that Perl 6 didn't help the situation and might have made it worse (it took its time to arrive, it cannot be used as a drop-in replacement for Perl 5, ...), the fact remains that its creation was a reaction to and not the cause of Perl 5's loss of mindshare.
I would argue that if you want to make Perl relevant again, there's no way around 'fixing' the language first. Perl 6 chose to do this no holds barred, setting everything on fire that was thought to be less than optimal. That's not the only way to do it, though: You can take a look at Reini Urban's cperl for what a more incremental approach looks like. Only after that's done, worries about the implications of Perl 6's existence for marketing that new and improved Perl 5 become legitimate. That is a problem, but I suspect there are ways it could be worked around (personally, I think Perl2k 1.0 has a nice ring to it).
However, there's of course no guarantee this would work: If you do not break backwards compatibility entirely to get rid of the warts (e.g. sigil variance), the language will probably still be seen as outdated or cryptic; and if you do break compatibility, you're back again to something that's awfully close to the Perl 6 situation...