I would guess that the results, clear though they may be, were less clear than they would have been had only the first question been voted on. I imagine that some voters were attracted to one of the alternative names offered, and voted the change on that account. Probably with the first question alone voted on, the total in favour of keeping the name would have been substantially higher. Even so, the results are decisive.
On another point, I suggest that, in future, requests for referenda require demonstrated support from membership. Minimally, that would be 2% of the membership in a petition, before being implemented. At the current level of membership, that would be 34 supporters. A higher number might seem preferable to some.
"I am attached to the present name because its poetry seemed to capture the nearest thing to a spontaneous movement that I have ever been part of. 'Open' is a weasel word like 'free' that expresses something we want but usually can't pin down. 'Anthropology' is something of an anti-discipline and more so here, where we encourage people without credentials to take part. 'Cooperative' has its own political history, as we know, but it does imply working rather than just consuming together." - Keith Hart, two or three pages ago.
Geez am I glad I stayed out of this one. I had a family upheaval to keep me occupied and expressed my non-vote opinion, privately.
The above quote by Dr. Hart eloquently encapsulates my precise reason for joining OAC. The name itself is a little awkward for me to type, the URL does not match as it is a virtual site on a wan network. Nevertheless, open and cooperative are the reasons I joined. The only two questions that should have been debated were: legal, intellectual rights to the name and legal registration rights with Ning.
Since OAC is not OAP, no intellectual violation there. Since OAC is housed as a virtual website on a wan network, no conflict with Ning as their registration process would have told the admins they could not choose the exact same name as another virtual. This latter registration process is the same as every individual trying to register an userid which has already been claimed.
So we keep OAC by majority, the system works, good. I was referring thirty people to this site as the whole debate commenced, not a condition I was happy about. Nothing about the debate offended me; however I no longer live in my happy little pond, some currents from parts far-flung have been introduced. It remains to the "What now?" discussion to flesh out what that means. Bylaws and/or mission statements are standard identification practices, closing some doors and opening many windows of opportunity.
What does offend me as a netizen is, contributors who write in all caps. That practice is a psychologically escalating device. This coop has been the soul of polite, passionate, respectful academic debate. Let us return to the high-road and move forward in the spirit of Dr. Hart's ideal.