A Bandwagon to Join is helped by having a name to rally around.
That was *certainly* the case with Agile, too much so. I advocated for AR⊗TA 
instead of "Agile" in 2007 because:
> We believe Agile software development is being dumbed down, commodified, and is losing its spirit. We seek to replace its current name with one having two virtues: first, that it capture more exactly the attitudes originally behind Agile; **second, that it be obscure enough that no one will assume they already know what it means and that—amazingly enough!—they are already doing it.**
I had a good deal of trouble with people who reasoned that "agile" as a common adjective connoted goodness (who would want to think of themselves as "torpid"), that they thought of themselves as good, therefore they must be Agile (the marketing term).
A name seemed less important at the time of LAWST1. Later, the collection of attitudes displayed there would be tagged as "context-driven testing," but that came later. I don't remember testing people rallying around a name back then.