On 2020-09-16 10:36 +03, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
   > The word modern has a negative meaning in that it implies that the
   > rest of Emacs isn't modern -- why would users ever want to switch of
   > "modern-mode" and use the un-modern Emacs?

   IMHO reading too much into names is not productive.  ‘Modern’ is a term
   that’s used fairly often in this context, and what to expect would be
   obvious to those who would want to use such a mode: features common to
   contemporary text editors.

Names mean things and in this discussion it was because Emacs was seen
as old (i.e., un-modern), a new user would be curious why modern-mode
isn't the default.  And as the discussion has showed, there is no
agreement what people think is modern.  So it would be simply better
to avoid the term "modern" completely.

   What features to put in there could slowly brew until 28 is released.

Why not slowly brew those and make them default instead?