I agree with many of the posters here that the ODK 2 rename is a separate discussion that shouldn't block the website launch. As @Carl_Hartung said:
Rather, I think the current state of the old website is causing more problems than a continuation of the status quo with the naming. It is so out of date and full of deprecations that I don't even use it as a resource anymore; I just link the forum and the docs. Yet it is still the first thing anyone sees when they search Open Data Kit. The new website, even an imperfect one, would be a valuable resource to everyone in the full ODK community. And, as a living document, it can be updated when the rename occurs.
I think updating the website is the most pressing issue currently on the PMC's plate. I think a rename is important but it should not block the website. In my opinion, these tasks could be completed in parallel. In the meantime, we currently have this explanation:
The ODK community currently produces two suites of tools, currently known as “ODK 1” and “ODK 2”. Some users will look at the version number and assume the latest is the greatest, but this is not always the case. For this reason, ODK 2 will be renamed in the near future. The ODK 2 Suite was designed to co-exist with ODK 1 tools, and does not replace any ODK 1 software."
Additionally, every summary of the ODK 2 tools on the website or in the docs includes some version of the phrase: a new set of tools that will co-exist with the ODK 1 tool suite. I think these work fine until the rename is complete.
Finally, I think ODK 2 should remain part of the ODK community. My view mirrors some other posters that Open Data Kit is larger than any of its tools. There was a great discussion of the mission and values recently on this thread: Feedback on Draft of ODK's Mission and Values - #28 by LN. I think the collection of all the current ODK tools fulfills these values better than either suite on their own. Particularly
We serve users with a wide range of technical ability and organizations with a wide range of technical capacity
and
We believe users should have ownership of their data and the flexibility to select suitable components from an ecosystem of complementary tools
are more fully realized by supporting both tool suites. My experience with the typical ODK 2 user is that they are very familiar with ODK 1, and often continue to use it, but have certain scenarios where the tools are not meeting their needs. For users with a stronger technical ability or organizations with a higher technical capacity, the ODK 2 tools provide an option built under Gaetano's vision and that meets those same core values.
I agree with other posters that ODK 2 should not compete with ODK 1. It is my opinion that it currently does not, and with more appropriate naming under the same ODK umbrella this would be clearer. However, I think separating the two projects would do the opposite: it would cause more confusion and imply that they do compete and are separate choices to the same problem.
To wrap up, I think that current state of opendatakit.org is the most confusing and detrimental problem for the PMC to fix, and none of these other issues should distract from it. The website should be updated as soon as possible, and a renaming discussion should happen in parallel.