So, I'd say OSI is, by definition, designed to be the gatekeepers of "Open Source".
I think a bit of a myth. There's documented existing use of the term in the same context before the OSI say they came up with it, and they were denied the trademark by the USPTO because it was an existing simply descriptive term.
I can understand that position but... they tried to trademark just 'open source' - without the 'initiative' part. They were told to rod off by the USPTO because you're not allowed to do that, so it's not ok by the law, whatever you think of it.
You can go argue with every major Linux distro, the Homebrew devs, package managers, and most key Open Source advocates if you want. Get them to change their definitions and the software they accept, and then maybe you'll have a point.
But in the meantime, you shouldn't be surprised when the community lashes out at you for appropriating decades of PR and public education just because you don't like that the definition we've always used to describe ourselves doesn't fit a particular business model. OSI/GNU have authority on this subject because we the community grant them authority. We're not interested in people coming in and leeching off the goodwill of Open Source while simultaneously restricting users' rights.
We are as a community guarding our terminology because our terms have value, and OSI is the standardized, commonly understood definition that we have advocated for. If you want to call that gatekeeping, I don't care. I don't want Open Source to be like the "organic" aisle at the grocery store, I want it to mean something specific.
On some level, you have to know that the phrase Open Source has value. That's why companies want to use it. That's why they're arguing over broadening the definition and calling the OSI a gatekeeper. They want to be able to use that phrase because it has positive connotations. It's not a linguistic debate, it's a debate over being able to imply that some software is Free even when it's not.
If you think that the OSI made a mistake by picking an existing phrase, that's a totally valid criticism you can have, but as a community we're still not going to let you redefine the phrase. We've invested in this. Take your own advice and come up with a new word for these new licenses.
To put it in legalistic terms: you can face legal consequences for false advertising despite making no use of trademarked language. The court will not be interested in the etymology of the words you used, that's an academic matter, it's the modern meaning that counts.