Could we please all calm down a bit. No one wants anyone to leave. Everyone is welcome. That is what "open" means. (Remember, Max left of his own accord.)
If some posts appear frivolous, it may be because the contributors feel that this topic and discussion are frivolous. People on all sides need to accept that everyone else is not necessarily going to agree with them. Where participation and democracy are allowed, that's the way it is, and should be.
We do all agree that Max means one thing by "open" and we mean something different or something overlapping, we haven't quite decided. Some feel that this means we should change. I don't see it. Words have multiple meanings; no one is more legitimate than the others. That is where the significance of "Open Tennis" is relevant, Jeremy. People are not idiots: they will figure out that we are not Max and Max is not us.
Jeremy says that comments of others do not add to the discussion. I would ask how this discussion adds to anthropology. My tentative answer: nil.
I agree that we should first of all decide IF we need a name change, and only after ask what this should be. However, I'm concerned about a number of things.
Linking to Forte's post and to this discussion in an eventual poll question appears to me as imbalanced. Nobody is going to read 11 pages (currently) of discussion here, especially given the unhelpful tones often used. But the key issue is that, while Forte's argument is his own, there isn't a corresponding one in this discussion. So what exactly are we asking people to vote on? In this way, Forte ends up being the only one who can frame the debate (which isn't of course his fault! It's just that he is one and we are many). Nor can we come up with a statement of corresponding length to put side-by-side to his post, because we don't have it, that's the whole problem. I think the point that nobody can define in a unitary manner the definition 'open anthropology' is an important one. Why don't we explore the possibility of simply stating somewhere that this project is separate from Forte's? Of making clear that we are not associated with him (although we value his work and he is welcome to join any time, and we him)? Surely that would solve the 'identity theft' issue?
One last thought: there is nothing intrinsically democratic in holding referendums that work on majority rule. I want to get this issue solved and move on as I know wants everyone else, but we should not rush towards solving issues based on win-lose scenarios and look at alternative possibilities based on win-win ones.