Well, more than anybody else you know it well why most of the failures happened.
But for others. I can understand the obvious disappointment. But Perl 6 is designed such that without many of those failures we couldn't have figured it out earlier what it would take to build Perl 6. Perl 6 has a mutable grammar, which means it should be written in itself. And this created a huge problem, because you don't have ready tools in hand to build such a thing. Many of them had to be built from scratch. And people failed many times exploring strategies doing that. Some people got ill, some people lost jobs, and projects like this which span a lot of time and require volunteer effort without much funding takes toll on people.
In many ways there was a lead, Lisp is so extensible because its written in itself. We really should have understood this from history. But achieving that in a non homoiconic language was difficult and required thinking in direction totally new to C based languages.
But great things have come out of it. Audrey's Pugs taught us so many things. And as she says, the 'Perl 6 on CPAN' thing started long back. Moose has become a very awesome tool for OO programming. Other things borrowed from Perl 6, things like given/when have shown a way to Perl 5 for evolution. Devel::Declare showed a new way to do syntax experiments outside core without using source filters. And many great things have come out of it. Its difficult to imagine how Perl 5 will likely evolve over time.
A few years back none of us could have seen Devel::Declare or even Moose coming. I can only imagine how Perl 5 is going to evolve over time.
Lastly I would say Rome was not built in a day. Perl 6 will take time, but it will come out in some years to come.
Perl 6 is designed such that without many of those failures we couldn't have figured it out earlier what it would take to build Perl 6.
Sure, but those don't account for the past four years of failures. What I see is a pattern of overwhelming desire to throw away code just as it's in danger of becoming useful to actual users.
Phrased from a different angle, the reason we wanted monthly releases was not because monthly releases are interesting in and of themselves, but because they could deliver regular (if incremental) improvements to actual users on a predictable schedule.
Forking Rakudo into an all-but-abandoned master branch and doing monthly releases off of that branch hews to the letter of the idea of monthly releases while violating the spirit of those releases. I understand the reasons why it happened, but that sort of decision has happened often enough in the project that it's a habit--if not culture.
After almost twelve years of rewrite after rewrite after rewrite, it's no wonder people stop caring.