Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others.
There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
Unless this authority has some ownership over the term and can prevent its misuse (e.g. with lawsuits or similar), it is not actually the authority of the term, and people will continue to use it how they see fit.
Indeed, I am not part of a movement (nor would I want to be) which focuses more on what words are used rather than what actions are taken.
This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No.