The concept of calling a bunch of marginally related and only partly compatible projects "Perl 11" is kinda weird marketing, IMHO. It's been around for a while, and I think it's the author of RPerl's thing.
But, I think it's definitely a situation where the projects are developers scratching their own itch, and diverging in not insignificant ways from mainline Perl 5 (and Perl 6 is not really in the picture for either cperl or RPerl). I don't know that it's a bad thing; Ruby and Python both have forks or implementations that are weird and non-mainline and no one considers them detracting from the Ruby or Python community, in general. Though, none of those projects called themselves Python 5, or whatever.
The idea was to come up with something like pypy performance-wise (i.e. parrot done right without all the destruction done later) and perl6 feature-wise.
perl6 is THE picture for cperl, because it has a proper spec for the useful features, to void the usual bike shedding, plaguing p5p since day 10.
The picture for RPerl is not perl6 but performance, proper mapping of perl5 code to C++ data and algos, eliminating run-time magic.
The other projects are doing their thing also, which is fine and encouraging.