The `requires` keyword to describe a relation is confusing

[Simon Déziel]

https://juju.is/docs/sdk/relations mentions:
> those under the `requires` keyword define services/interfaces that the
> charm consumes from others. Despite their name, requires relations are
> not always essential for the application to function - charm authors
> can indicate optionality in the metadata

This is confusing and the informational-only `optional` flag helps only marginally.

Optional relations could be listed under a `consumes` section to better convey that they are not required.

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

I think there is, indeed, a bit of a logical disconnect between a 'requires' that is optional. There is a different use for 'consumes' (when you offer a cross model relation, that gets consumed in the target model).
So it probably isn't a word that we would switch to. It might be worth brainstorming alternative words, though at this point we are unlikely to change the word that charms have been using for quite some time.