Going to ignore the goading and get to the crux.
The only “restriction” that left-libertarianism imposes is no authoritarianism and no right-wing nonsense. It can’t get more nimble or flexible insofar as meeting the requirements of the party’s current culture and ensuring it isn’t restricted in the future without evolving into something it should never be.
I don’t care if—regardless of what the name changes to—we lose members. If they’re in it exclusively for the name, they’re in it definitely for the wrong reasons. I’ve spent the best part of 8 years on this party, so I’m not some nobody nom de plume trying to assert a point for no purpose than to gain attention. I want the party to grow going forward and it has largely stagnated in its current form. I will continue to argue for my proposal otherwise there would have been no reason to propose it in the first place.
Go read over @Frew’s post and see someone else who has spent just as many years on this organisation making the point about why the change is necessary.
Are Left Libertarians really right-wing? 
Also because I just can’t let this go: the Liberals are liberal in the sense they named themselves; see economic liberalism.