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.